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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 03/02/2026.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 3 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 are currently pending and are considered below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
8. Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are anticipated by the reference claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1, recites a system comprising: a processor; and memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
obtaining forecast inventory data that is indicative of forecast impressions for a first delivery segment, wherein the first delivery segment is associated with at least one of a plurality of digital canvases operable to display media content;
obtaining allocation data indicative of a target number of impressions;
determining, based upon the target number of impressions, a forecast of allocated impressions in the first delivery segment;
determining a portion of the forecast of allocated impressions in the first delivery segment that are displaceable into a portion of a second delivery segment;
computing a number of unallocated impressions in the first delivery segment subsequent to displacement of the displaceable portion of the forecast of allocated impressions; and
causing at least one of the unallocated impressions in the first delivery segment to be inserted within a plurality of video frames corresponding to the first delivery segment, wherein the plurality of video frames are a portion of media content displayed by one or more of the plurality of digital canvases by way of an electronic content delivery system.
The steps of obtaining forecast inventory data that is indicative of forecast impressions for a first delivery segment, wherein the first delivery segment is associated with at least one of a plurality of digital canvases operable to display media content;
obtaining allocation data indicative of a target number of impressions;
determining, based upon the target number of impressions, a forecast of allocated impressions in the first delivery segment;
determining a portion of the forecast of allocated impressions in the first delivery segment that are displaceable into a portion of a second delivery segment;
computing a number of unallocated impressions in the first delivery segment subsequent to displacement of the displaceable portion of the forecast of allocated impressions; and
causing at least one of the unallocated impressions in the first delivery segment to be inserted within a plurality of video frames corresponding to the first delivery segment, wherein the plurality of video frames are a portion of media content displayed by one or more of the plurality of digital canvases by way of an electronic content delivery system,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a process for managing allocations of media content in electric segments. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to providing data associated with the person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor and memory. The processor and memory (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of obtaining forecast inventory data; obtaining allocation data indicative of a target number of impressions; determining, a forecast of allocated impressions in the first delivery segment; determining a portion of the forecast of allocated impressions; computing a number of unallocated impressions in the first delivery segment; and causing at least one of the unallocated impressions in the first delivery segment to be displayed) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 additional elements of a processors and memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a common business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334); providing a user with tailored information like advertisements based on information known about the user such as a location, address, or personal characteristics and a time of day is a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system); In re Morsa, 809 F. App’x 913, 917 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, a processors and memory, performing commercial interactions including: obtaining forecast inventory data; obtaining allocation data indicative of a target number of impressions; determining, a forecast of allocated impressions in the first delivery segment; determining a portion of the forecast of allocated impressions; computing a number of unallocated impressions in the first delivery segment; and causing at least one of the unallocated impressions in the first delivery segment to be displayed, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor.
Thus, independent claims1, 12 and 20 are not eligible.
As for dependent claims 2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13, 15-16, 18 and 19, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 1 and 12. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 5 and 17, these claims recite “determining a number of allocated impressions in the first delivery segment; and causing at least one of the allocated impressions in the first delivery segment to be displayed by one or more of the plurality of digital canvases by way of the electronic content delivery system.”. These claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 1 and 12, specifically with limitation determining a number of allocated impressions and cause the display of this impressions. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claim 8, this claim recites “wherein the first set of attributes comprises at least one of:
a time-related attribute;
a geographical attribute;
an origination attribute indicative of a web page or application to which impressions in the first delivery segment pertain; or
a contextual attribute indicative of placement of the impressions in the first delivery segment within the web page or the application.”. These claim recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claim 1, wherein the attributes comprises of at least one of the above attributes. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claim 10, this claim recites “further comprising:
receiving historical inventory data indicative of previously-served impressions for the first delivery segment by the electronic content delivery system; and
estimating the forecast inventory data based upon the historical inventory data, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example but for the “processors and memory” language in claim 1. The claim falls into the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed on 03/02/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
12. Applicant argued that “…” The Claims Recite Elements Unrelated to Organizing Human Activity and are therefore Not Abstract The claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed elements cannot reasonably be interpreted as being directed to organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea)…”Remarks pages 9-11
13. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously noted, examiner notes that the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity as fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors by obtaining inventory data and allocation data, determining a forecast and allocated forecast of impressions, computing unallocated impressions and display unallocated impressions. When recited at this level of generality without any technical details to indicate improvements to computers, software, or other technologies, the claim recites an abstract idea.
14. Applicant argued that “…The Independent Claims Recite Elements that Integrate Any Alleged Abstract Idea Recited in Such Claims into a Practical Application of the Abstract Idea It is not conceded that the independent claims recite an abstract idea; nevertheless, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patent-eligible at least because the independent claims recite features that integrate any alleged abstract idea recited in such claims into a practical application of the abstract idea…” Remarks pages 11-13
15. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the additional element of a processor is claimed and described at a high level of generality as a tool used to implement the abstract idea without improving computers or another technology. Nor does performing a method on a processor apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, or transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the abstract idea in some other meaningful way to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The final step of displaying unallocated impressions recites extra-solution activity. The claims lack additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
16. Applicant argues that “…The Elements of the Claims Amount to Significantly More than the Abstract Idea The elements of the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself at least because the claimed elements are not directed towards well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. The claimed subject matter is patentably distinct over the references of record, evidenced at least by the lack of rejection to the claims under §102 or §103. If an element or elements of the claims is not widely prevalent or in common use, or is otherwise beyond those elements recognized in the art as being well- understood, routine, or conventional, then the element favors eligibility.'* Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that because the claims are not suggested by the prior art, it follows that the elements of the claim are not well-understood, routine, or conventional and therefore amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself…” Remarks page 13
17. Examiner notes that under Step 2B, mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as is the case in the present claims, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
18. Similar to the parent application (18/075083 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,039,577)) the closest prior art includes Soon-Shiong (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0172778), and Toma et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0142757).
19. Soon-Shiong (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0172778) discloses about a set of descriptors exist within a descriptor space, wherein the set of descriptors might be associated with a known object, or a set of descriptor might form a cluster of descriptors in the descriptor space (see at least paragraphs 0036-0039).
20. Toma et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0142757) talks about the TEMI access unit may include a timeline descriptor and a location descriptor, and the transmitting method may include: storing the timing update identification information and the second time in the timeline descriptor; and storing location information in the location descriptor, the location information indicating a location of the content related to the second stream. .
21. Desforges (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0196113) discloses receiving, by a message center, a message from an access device connected to a wireless network and associated with a first user, the message including content data representative of a content instance and a message data; storing, by the message center, the message content; calculating an impression volume based on the message data; selectively generating a distribution list based on the message data as related to the first user; distributing, by the message center, the message content to a number of members of the distribution list corresponding to the impression volume (see at least the Abstract).
21. Castano et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0014086) discloses receiving spot inventory data associated with a plurality of TV stations; receiving a rule variable associated with an advertising rule; receiving a goal variable associated with a goal; applying the advertising rule to select a plurality of spots that are eligible to form one or more spot sets; forming or generating at least one of the spot sets depending, at least in part, on a proximity to the goal; and generating an output associated with the generated spot set (see at least paragraph 0007 of the SUMMARY).
23. Sheth et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0081771) discloses extending publisher inventory, including receiving distribution agreement data specifying a first number of impressions that a first publisher has agreed to allocate to a content item provider during a specified period. A determination is made that an estimated total number of impressions that the first publisher will allocate to the content item provider over the specified period will be less than the first number of impressions. A third number of additional impressions are obtained from one or more second publishers that differ from the first publisher. At least a portion of the third number of additional impressions is allocated to the content item provider to meet the first number of impressions specified by the distribution agreement data (see at least the Abstract).
24. None of the above references, nor any obvious combination of the prior art references teach or suggest the claimed limitations including “…obtaining forecast inventory data that is indicative of forecast impressions for a first delivery segment, wherein the first delivery segment is associated with at least one of a plurality of digital canvases operable to display media content; determining, based upon the target number of impressions, a forecast of allocated impressions in the first delivery segment; determining a portion of the forecast of allocated impressions in the first delivery segment that are displaceable into a portion of a second delivery segment; and computing a number of unallocated impressions in the first delivery segment subsequent to displacement of the displaceable portion of the forecast of allocated impressions…”
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, llana 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 03/21/2026