DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed January 16, 2026. Claims 1, 6-7, 15, 17 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/512,427, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application No. 63/512,427 at least does not disclose, determine a factor value for each factor, wherein the factor value for each factor is between 0 and 1; set a respective factor exponent for each factor value for each factor to 0 or 1 based on a truth determination of a factor whether to include each factor, wherein the respective factor exponent set to 0 is indicative of the truth determination of the factor being false; solve for a plurality of respective factor solutions based on each factor value for each factor set to a power of each respective factor exponent; transmit, via the intelligent Al platform, an output of the click price via a communication channel path for display on a graphical user interface of a user.
Therefore, as the present application is a nonprovisional of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/512,427; and the claims are not supported by the disclosure of the application, the current claims, 1-20 of present application do not receive priority to the filing date of Application No. 61/785,899.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In Claims 1, 15 and 20 the limitation “; transmit, via the intelligent Al platform, an output of the click price via a communication channel path for display on a graphical user interface of a user,” is not described in the original disclosure. The specification states that in “aspects, validation output 114 as well as the one or more alerts 116 based on the results of the validation may be transmitted to a user, such as to at least one of an email, a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computing device 324 of the one or more users of the system 300, a server 320, or any combination thereof.” [0031]. This does not describe that the intelligent Al platform, transmits the click price for display on a graphical user interface. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter. Claims 2-14 and 16-19 by being dependents of claims 1 and 15 respectively are also rejected.
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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed toward at least abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a system, claim 15 is directed towards a system, claim 20 is directed towards a method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recites: solve for a plurality of coefficients of a plurality of respective factors, wherein each coefficient is an exponent in an equation; determine a factor value for each factor, wherein the factor value for each factor is between 0 and 1; set a respective factor exponent for each factor value for each factor to 0 or 1 based on a truth determination of a factor whether to include each factor, wherein the respective factor exponent set to 0 is indicative of the truth determination of the factor being false; solve for a plurality of respective factor solutions based on each factor value for each factor set to a power of each respective factor exponent; determine a probability of a conversion associated with an imminent click for an individual i based on a multiplication of the plurality of respective factor solutions; and generate, a click price based on at least the probability of the conversion associated with the imminent click for the individual i and a target acquisition cost of an entity. These limitations are directed towards the abstract grouping of Mathematical Concepts, in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, because they calculate, organize and anticipate data through mathematical formulas or equations, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. Additionally, and/or alternatively, the limitation: generate, a click price based on at least the probability of the conversion associated with the imminent click for the individual i and a target acquisition cost of an entity, describes commercial interactions, and managing personal behavior; and is thus grouped under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using a computer as a tool to apply an abstract idea, or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and extra-solution activity. In particular the claim recites the additional elements: a processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to; using an artificial intelligence model trained on one or more training data sets and part of an intelligent artificial intelligence (AI) platform, which are recited at a high level of generality and are the mere use of a computer as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
While, the limitation, transmit, via the intelligent Al platform, an output of the click price via a communication channel path for display on a graphical user interface of a user, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because such activity is merely post-solution data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Simply applying the abstract idea by computer components and adding insignificant extra-solution activities is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claim does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional limitations amounting to extra-solution activity and using a computer to apply the abstract idea. Viewing the limitations individually, the transmitting, an output of the click price via a communication channel path for display on a graphical user interface of a user, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity because it amounts to necessary data outputting in implementing the aforementioned abstract concepts, see MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have recognized automating mental tasks and receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Moreover, the limitations generically referring to a processor, a memory, an artificial intelligence model, also do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer components, executing basic mathematical functions of a computer. The additional elements of claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The additional elements of generic computer components and AI model (computing tool) are used to perform a marketing/advertising strategy. Merely applying an exception using general computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept). Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
An analysis of dependent claims 2-14, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above. The claims only further add to the abstract idea, with no elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. For instance, claim 6-7, 17 use an artificial intelligence model to train data set comprising individual’s data, which amounts to merely an implementation of the abstract idea via computer algorithms. Thus, while the dependent claims may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 15-20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1-14 and are also rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the recitations of independent claims are directed to an automated generation of optimized click prices that allow for dynamic changes of the click prices in real-time to meet desired real- time demands and thus are not in any of the enumerated abstract groupings. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims are directed to abstract ideas, namely Mathematical Concepts because they calculate, organize and estimate data through mathematical formulas or equations (solve for a plurality of coefficients of a plurality of respective factors; determine a factor value for each factor, wherein the factor value for each factor is between 0 and 1; solve for a plurality of respective factor solutions based on each factor value for each factor set to a power of each respective factor exponent; determine a probability of a conversion associated with an imminent click for an individual i based on a multiplication of the plurality of respective factor solutions). And/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because they set forth and describe commercial interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities as well as managing personal behavior (determine a probability of a conversion associated with an imminent click for an individual; a click price based on a probability of a conversion associated with an imminent click for an individual and a target acquisition cost of an entity; transmitting a click price to a user).
Applicant contends that the claims are not directed to any of the enumerated judicial exceptions similar to Example 38 of the 2019 PEG found to be eligible and reciting a method for providing a digital computer simulation of an analog audio mixer comprising, among other elements. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims are not analogous to Example 38 because they have different claim sets, different fact patterns and are directed to different abstract eligibility, which is apt as Applicant argues that their invention is also similar to Examples 40, 41, 48, 42, Ex Parte Desjardins and Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 Fed. Appx 1001, 1004-1005 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Nevertheless, in Example 38, an abstract idea was not recited because although, the independent claim included several limitations that may have been based upon mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations, the mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations were not explicitly recited in the claim. In contrast Applicant’s claim explicitly recites mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations. Just because the claims are not recited as a formula or equation using numbers and math symbols, (as in Applicant’s claim 2), they are nonetheless formulas and equations using textual replacements; and as such; fall withing the Mathematical Concepts grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection I(B).
Applicant posits that the claims recite limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept, and that the Office Action does not with respect to any judicial exception distinguish claims that recite a judicial exception from claims that involve a judicial exception. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims have been analyzed in line with MPEP 2106.04(a), which states that
Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, a determination has been properly made, on the claims as a whole, as to which claim limitations fall within an abstract idea grouping. Still, Applicant has not pointed out which limitation allegedly only involves the abstract idea.
Applicant contends that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application similar to Example 40 of the 2019 PEG through the recitation of a meaningful limitation of at least the practical application of collecting additional Netflow protocol data relating to traffic, and the instant recited independent claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of at least, generating a click price based on at least the probability of the conversion associated with the imminent click for the individual and a target acquisition cost of an entity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to Example 40, the additional elements provided by Applicant’s claims do not improve on network performance, data collection, or any other technology. Generating a click price based on the probability of a conversion associated with an individual’s click and a target acquisition cost of an entity, is an abstract idea in and of itself, as shown above. Accordingly, if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract’). Thus, the combined additional elements in the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Applicant contends that similar to Desjardins the amended claims also integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and also constitute an improvement as to how the machine learning model itself operates and not the identified mathematical calculations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In comparison to Desjardins, the instant claims are not analogous because they do not provide any improvement to a technology that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Panel decision in Desjardins was that there was a technical improvement to the machine learning model found in the additional elements of the claim, which was technically supported by the specification. Applicant merely uses its model as a tool to generate a click price and as a platform to transmit the click price data to the user. I.e., as a tool to apply the abstract idea and at most extra-solution activity. Applicant states that the specification provides as an example, data sets of a time exceeding a time threshold may be removed from the model, thereby reducing storage needs and preserving performance. The specification however, does not describe how this is accomplished. Moreover, merely removing stale data does not amount to an improvement on a machine learning model. On the one hand, as offered by Desjardins, claims “‘[g]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use’ are not patent eligible.” Desjardins [pg 7].
Applicant contends that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application similar to Example 41 of the 2019 PEG through the recitation of additional elements such as, generating a click price based on at least the probability of the conversion associated with the imminent click for the individual and a target acquisition cost of an entity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims are not analogous to Example 41 because they have different claim sets, different fact patterns and do not provide additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Generating a click price based on the probability of a conversion associated with an individual’s click and a target acquisition cost of an entity, is an abstract idea in and of itself, as shown above. If the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See RecogniCorp. at 1327 (‘Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract’). As such, the combined additional elements in the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Further Applicant states that the analogy to Example 41 was made to show how the claims sufficiently integrate the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application. However, it is not a fitting analogy neither is the analogy to Examples 38, 41, 48, 42, Desjardins and Trading Techs.
Applicant also contends that the claims are eligible and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application similar to Claim 2 of Example 48 of the 2024 SME through the technical improvement for predicting a probability of a conversion associated with an imminent click and generating a click price based at least thereon. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims are not analogous to Claim 2 of Example 48 because they have different claim sets, different fact patterns and do not provide any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The claims for instance do not generate a mixed speech signal that excludes speech signal from a target source, but rather generate a click price based on a probability of an individual’s action. See, Id. Indeed, that the claims recitations account for consequences of overpricing clicks that may result in an entity's withdrawal due to excessive costs; and advancement with respect to automatic generation of optimized click prices for advertisements of advertisers and dynamic changes of click prices in real-time, is directed to an entrepreneurial improvement rather than a technological one. Furthermore, avoiding using additional computing processing resources, which would allow for inputs of heuristics to account for small samples sizes, and allows for a more efficient processing technology, does not amount to an improvement to the computer itself but rather what is to be expected and is similar to “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). As such, there is no technical improvement as provided by Claim 2 of Example 48, and the combined additional elements in the instant claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application
Applicant also contends that the claims similarly to Example 42, integrate the judicial exception, including a method of organizing human activity, into a practical application by reciting a specific improvement of generating a click price per a specific algorithm as recited, allowing for a real-time automated and adaptable determination of a desired click price generation that is recited feature and entity dependent to dynamically meet specific entities needs. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims and Example 42 are not remotely similar as they have different claim sets, different fact patterns and do not provide any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application as did Example 42. Furthermore, assuming arguendo, the claims recite a specific improvement of generating a click price per a specific algorithm, allowing for a real-time automated and adaptable determination of a desired click price generation that is recited, feature and entity dependent to dynamically meet specific entities needs, this does not automatically render the claim patent eligible. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 599–601 (2010) (concluding that claims fell outside § 101 notwithstanding the fact that they disclosed a very specific method of hedging against price increases); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978) (rejecting the argument “that if a process application implements a principle in some specific fashion, it automatically falls within the patentable subject matter of § 101”); and Alice v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358–60 (2014) (claims fell outside of 35 U.S.C. 101 even though they described a very specific method for conducting intermediated settlement).
Applicant submits that the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea as they at least affect an improvement in the technology and/or technical field of an automated generation of optimized click prices that allow for dynamic changes of the click prices in real-time based on meaningful limitations as recited in the claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. An improvement of an automated generation of optimized click prices that allow for dynamic changes of the click prices in real-time, is an improvement of an abstract idea and not a technology. The claims, therefore do not proffer any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, Applicant’s provided improvement, is to the abstract idea via machine learning. The specification states that “the machine learning model 102, parameters and weightages of the model and outputs may be continuously fine-tuned and improved for improved accuracy of the generated click price output” [0028]. Merely applying an exception using general computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept).
Additionally, Applicant contends that similar to the finding in Trading Techs the claims are patent eligible because they are directed to a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality via use of algorithms for an automated generation of optimized click prices that allow for dynamic changes of the click prices and transmission to an improved graphical user interface in real-time. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims are not analogous to Trading Techs, because they have different claim sets, different fact patterns and are totally different inventions. As applicant would be inclined to point out Trading Techs is a non-precedential case and as such is not germane since Applicant’s fact patterns and claim sets are quite disparate. Nevertheless, in Trading Techs, the Courts concluded that the claimed invention, when implemented, described technological improvements in the interface that commodities traders use, and therefore the claimed invention represents more than just an abstract idea – i.e. the claimed invention solved problems with prior graphical user interface devices. On the contrary, Applicant’s interface is merely used to display click price data to a user.
Applicant submits that an improvement that is significantly more than an abstract idea is evidenced by the lack of rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103 against the subject claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. An abstract idea that is not well- understood, routine, and conventional is still an abstract idea and thus not patent eligible. Applicant’s claims are most similar to Flook, 437 U.S. 584, that was directed to novel Mathematical Concepts but found by the supreme court to be ineligible. As even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. For example, the mathematical formula in. Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73-74, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012), and the isolated DNA in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1978 (2013) were all novel, but were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions. See also MPEP 2106.04.I.
Based on the foregoing, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571- 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
Prosecution Insights