DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 7/26/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/6/2026 has been entered.
a. Claims 2-4, 7, 9, 11-13, 17, 20-27 are amended
b. Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 15, 18, 20 are cancelled
Overall, claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, 19, 21-27 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 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, 19, 21-27 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 2-4, 6-7, 9, 22-24 are directed to a computer implemented method and claims 12-14, 16-17, 19, 25-27 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 2, (which is representative of independent claims 12) 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 2 (which is representative of independent claims 12) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A method for resolving advertisement placement conflicts comprising:
[B] receiving, at an advertisement placement server configured to communicate with a user device, a number of advertisements over a network, wherein each advertisement, of the number of advertisements, is received from a separate advertiser for placing their advertisement in a plurality of advertisement slots that are less in number than the number of received advertisements;
[C] simulating, by the advertisement placement server, an assignment of the number of received advertisements based on a parameter associated with each separate advertiser;
wherein the parameter comprises an importance score
[D] determining, by the advertisement placement server, based on the simulating, that there is a conflict that prevents assigning the number of received advertisements to the lesser number of plurality of advertisement slots; and
in response to determining the conflict:
[E] assigning, by the advertisement placement server, a first advertisement slot, from the plurality of advertisement slots, to a first advertiser, from the separate advertisers, based on the first advertiser having a first parameter associated with a contract between a provider of the plurality of advertisement slots and the first advertiser;
[F] wherein the contract comprises an obligation to assign the first advertisement slot to the first advertiser;
[G] generating, by the advertisement placement server, a plurality of different configurations of the parameters associated with other advertisers, from the separate advertisers, that do not have the first parameter associated with the contract by iteratively
removing or modifying one or more parameters of the parameters associated with the other advertisers using a feasibility relaxation algorithm for mixed integer linear programs,
[H] iteratively removing or modifying one or more parameters of the parameters associated with the other advertisers, based on importance scores of the one or more parameters; and
[I] assigning, by the advertisement placement server, remaining slots, from the plurality of advertisement slots, to a selected subset of the other advertisers based at least in part on one of the plurality of different configurations comprising a highest total priority importance score of the one or more parameters compared to total importance scores of other of the plurality of different configurations.
Independent claim 2 (which is representative of independent claim 12) recites: simulating an assignment ([C]); determining that there is a conflict ([D]); assigning a first advertisement slot ([E]); generating a plurality of configurations and removing or modifying parameters ([G], [H]); and assigning the remaining slots ([I]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, 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)).
In addition, or alternatively, this is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements of reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step “simulating an assignment of the number of received advertisements based on a parameter associated with each separate advertiser;”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally simulating an allocation configuration, without physical aid. Further, the step “determining based on the simulating, that there is a conflict that prevents assigning the number of received advertisements to the lesser number of plurality of advertisement slots”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally a placement conflict, without physical aid. Further, the step “assigning a first advertisement slot, from the plurality of advertisement slots, to a first advertiser, from the separate advertisers”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally assigning advertisement slots to advertisers, without physical aid. Further, the step “generating a plurality of different configurations of the parameters associated with other advertisers that do not have the first parameter associated with the contract by iteratively removing or modifying one or more parameters of the parameters associated with the other advertisers”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally continuing to allocated subsequent slots, without physical aid. Further, the step “iteratively removing or modifying one or more parameters of the parameters associated with the other advertisers, based on importance scores of the one or more parameters”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally continuing by removing and/or adding other advertisements to the remaining slots, without physical aid. Further, the step “assigning remaining slots to a selected subset of the other advertisers based at least in part on one of the plurality of different configurations comprising a highest total priority importance score of the one or more parameters compared to total importance scores of other of the plurality of different configurations.”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally allocating advertisement slots, based on priority, without physical aid. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) iii B)
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 2 (which is representative of independent claims 12) 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 additional elements “wherein the parameter comprises an importance score”, “wherein the contract comprises an obligation to assign the first advertisement slot to the first advertiser”, as applied to the advertisements, 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 “selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”, 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: receiving advertisements over a network ([B]). 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 (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 2 (which is representative of independent claims 12) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 2 (which is representative of claims independent 12) 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 2, 12 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 3, which is representative of claim 13, recites: wherein the feasibility relaxation algorithm for mixed integer linear programs is configured to
generate the plurality of different configurations based on violating a smallest number of parameters and minimizing a number of conflict parameters removed from the plurality of parameters
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to performance of limitations expressing mathematical concepts like mathematical relationships. These fall under the Mathematical Concepts. i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”).
Therefore, dependent claim 3 (which is representative of dependent claim 13) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 4, which is representative of dependent claim 14, recites:
determining by the advertisement placement server that an advertisement from a second advertiser, from the separate advertisers, can be assigned to an advertisement slot on a different day; and
in response to determining that the advertisement from the second advertiser can be assigned to an advertisement slot on the different day,
assigning by the advertisement placement server a low importance score to the parameter associated with the second advertiser.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting 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 (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 (which is representative of dependent claim 14) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 7, which is representative of dependent claim 17, recites:
determining by the advertisement placement server that assigning the remaining slots to the selected subset of the other advertisers does not result in resolving the conflict; and
in response to determining that the conflict is not resolved,
generating by the advertisement placement server for display a notification to a user that the conflict cannot be resolved.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting 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 (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 (which is representative of dependent claim 17) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 9, which is representative of dependent claim 19, recites:
ranking by the advertisement placement server each parameter from the separate advertisers based on a respective importance score,
wherein a highest-ranked parameter is associated with a lowest importance score and a lowest-ranked parameter is associated with a highest importance score.
generating by the advertisement placement server the plurality of different configurations of the parameters associated with the other advertisers that do not have the parameter associated with the contract comprises removing the highest-ranked parameter.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)). .
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”).
Therefore, dependent claim 9 (which is representative of dependent claim 19) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 11, which is representative of dependent claim 21, recites:
assign the remaining slots to the other advertisers that do not have the parameter associated with the contract.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting 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 (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”).
Therefore, dependent claim 11 (which is representative of dependent claim 21) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 23, which is representative of dependent claim 26, recites: in response to determining the conflict,
generating for display an indication of the conflict.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting 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 (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”).
Therefore, dependent claim 11 (which is representative of dependent claim 21) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 6, 22, 24 which are representative of dependent claims 16, 25, 27, respectively, recite:
wherein assigning the remaining slots to the selected subset of the other advertisers results in resolving the conflict.
wherein the highest total importance score of the one or more parameters comprises a mathematical sum of all importance scores of the one of the plurality of different configurations.
wherein the conflict that prevents assigning the number of received advertisements comprises not satisfying one or more parameters associated with each separate advertiser.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – removing/modifying parameters; the assigning of slots; the contract guarantees – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“selecting for placement advertisements originating from multiple advertisers by resolving placement conflicts”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 3, 6, 10 (which are representative of dependent claims 13, 16, 20, respectively) are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, 19, 21-27 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 3-5, 8-11, 12, 13-15, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negruseri et al (US 2015/0199724), in view of Mehrotra et al (US 2006/0112049), in further view of Liu et al (US 8,880,438), in further view of Nazed Zadeh et al (US 2012/0158522), in further view of Anand et al (US 2005/0203796).
Regarding Claims 2, 12: Negruseri discloses: A method for resolving advertisement placement conflicts comprising:
receiving, at an advertisement placement server configured to communicate with a user device {see at least fig1, rc108, [pages 4-5}, a number of advertisements over a network, wherein each advertisement, of the number of advertisements, is received from a separate advertiser for placing their advertisement in a plurality of advertisement slots that are less in number than the number of received advertisements; {see at least fig3, rc302, rc304, [0036]-[0037] advertisements reservation, targeting criteria}
simulating, by the advertisement placement server, an assignment of the number of received advertisements based on a parameter associated with each separate advertiser; {see at least fig3, rc306, [0038] competing reservations (reads on assignment of advertisements to advertisements slots)}
determining, by the advertisement placement server, based on the simulating, that there is a conflict that prevents assigning the number of received advertisements to the lesser number of plurality of advertisement slots; and
in response to determining the conflict; {see at least fig3, rc306, rc308, [0038]-[0039] conflict, overbooking score}
assigning, by the advertisement placement server, a first advertisement slot, from the plurality of advertisement slots, to a first advertiser, from the separate advertisers, based on the first advertiser having a parameter associated with a contract between a provider of the plurality of advertisement slots and the first advertiser; {see at least [0032] system allocates advertisements while maintaining maximum flow; [0055] system will find another allocation (reads on modified model) without reducing the maximum flow}
Negruseri does not disclose, however, Mehrotra discloses:
generating, by the advertisement placement server, a plurality of different
configurations of the parameters associated with other advertisers, from the separate
advertisers, that do not have the first parameter associated with the contract by iteratively
removing or modifying one or more parameters of the parameters associated with the other advertisers using a feasibility relaxation algorithm for mixed integer linear programs, {see at [0013] mixed integer programming; continuous relaxation is feasible (reads on feasibility relaxation); different configurations}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri to include the elements of Mehrotra. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a criterium for assigning advertisement slots. In the instant case, Negruseri evidently discloses assigning advertainments slots. Mehrotra is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of determining assignment conditions in the same or similar context. Since both assigning advertainments slots, as well as determining assignment conditions are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Negruseri, as well as Mehrotra would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Negruseri / Mehrotra.
Negruseri, Mehrotra does not disclose, however, Liu discloses:
iteratively removing or modifying one or more parameters of the parameters associated with the other advertisers, based on importance scores of the one or more parameters; and {see at least fig4, rc402, (62)/[12:5-30] At block 402, historical data indicative of actual parameter rankings may be received for a plurality of content items, such as advertisements previously shown and studied. At block 404, the statistical model may be trained with the historical data. At block 406, one or more processing circuits may receive a plurality of parameters of a new content item and a plurality of corresponding initial relevance scores of the parameters indicating relevance of the parameters to the new content item.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri, Mehrotra to include the elements of Liu. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to optimize the assignment process. In the instant case, Negruseri, Mehrotra evidently discloses assigning advertainments slots. Liu is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of modifying the assignment criteria in the same or similar context. Since both assigning advertainments slots, as well as modifying the assignment criteria are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Negruseri, Mehrotra, as well as Liu would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Negruseri, Mehrotra / Liu.
Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu does not disclose, however Nazer Zadeh discloses:
wherein the parameter comprises an importance score {see at least [0002] auction process; bids are ranked (based on BRI (MPEP 2111) reads on importance score, which allows comparing those scores); [0045] re-ranking the bids (based on BRI (MPEP 2111) reads on calculating importance score)}
assigning, by the advertisement placement server, remaining slots, from the plurality of advertisement slots, to a selected subset of the other advertisers based at least in part on one of the plurality of different configurations comprising a highest total priority importance score of the one or more parameters compared to total importance scores of other of the plurality of different configurations. {see at least [0002] auction process; bids are ranked (based on BRI (MPEP 2111) reads on importance score, which allows comparing those scores); [0045] re-ranking the bids (reads on calculating importance score); [0003] platform ranks the bids and awards impression (reads on comparing scores); [0046] priority auction, highest bid and second highest bid (reads selecting other advertisers based on relative weights); [0042] ranking advertisers for any suitable reason; [0079] multiple available advertising spaces on a webpage may be ranked in terms of their positioning, size, and/or any other relevant aspect or parameter (reads on modifying parameters)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu to include the elements of Nazer Zadeh. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to assign all the available advertisement slots. In the instant case, Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu evidently discloses assigning advertainments slots. Nazer Zadeh is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of assigning remaining advertisement slots in the same or similar context. Since both assigning advertainments slots, as well as assigning remaining advertisement slots are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, as well as Nazer Zadeh would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu / Nazer Zadeh.
Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh does not disclose, however, Anand discloses:
wherein the contract comprises an obligation to assign the first advertisement slot to the first advertiser {see at least [0017] pre-existing obligations for allocating slots (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on contractual obligations)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh to include the elements of Anand. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a fair business environment. In the instant case, Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh evidently discloses assigning all available advertisement slots. Anand is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of pre-existing contractual obligations in the same or similar context. Since both assigning all available advertisement slots, as well as pre-existing contractual obligations are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, as well as Anand would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh / Anand.
Regarding Claims 3, 13: Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Mehrotra further discloses:
wherein the feasibility relaxation algorithm for mixed integer linear programs is configured to generate the plurality of different configurations based on violating a smallest number of parameters and minimizing a number of conflict parameters removed from the plurality of parameters. {see at [0013] mixed integer programming; continuous relaxation is feasible (reads on feasibility relaxation); [0116] minimize the objective … (reads on minimizing the number of conflict parameters)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand to include the elements of Mehrotra. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to utilize a proven technology for expected results. In the instant case, Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand evidently discloses assigning all available advertisement slots. Mehrotra is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of utilizing a feasibility relaxation algorithm in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 4, 14: Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Nazer Zadeh further discloses:
determining, by the advertisement placement server, that an advertisement from a second advertiser, from the separate advertisers, can be assigned to an advertisement slot on a different day; and {see at least [0002] auction process; bids are ranked; winning advertiser (based on BRI (MPEP 2111) reads second advertiser); [0045] bids from different advertisers}
in response to determining that the advertisement from the second advertiser can be assigned to the advertisement slot on the different day, { Nazer Zadeh fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the next step can be performed in response to the condition being fulfilled – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
assigning, by the advertisement placement server, a low importance score to the parameter associated with the second advertiser. {see at least [0045] re-rank the bids (reads on assigning a score)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh to include additional elements of Nazer Zadeh. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to optimize the assignment. In the instant case, Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh evidently discloses assigning all available advertisement slots. Nazer Zadeh is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of prioritizing advertisers in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 9, 19: Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Negruseri further discloses:
ranking, by the advertisement placement server, each parameter from the separate advertisers based on a respective importance score, {see at least [0031]-[0032] ranking on numerical scale}
wherein a highest-ranked parameter is associated with a lowest importance score and a lowest-ranked parameter is associated with a highest parameter score. {see at least fig7A, rc708, [0064] smoothness score}
Nazer Zadeh further discloses:
generating the plurality of different configurations of the parameters associated with the other advertisers that do not have the parameter associated with the contract comprises removing, by the advertisement placement server, the highest-ranked parameter. {see at least [0002] considering the next highest amount (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on removing the highest ranked parameter)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand to include additional elements of Nazer Zadeh. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to incentivize advertisers. In the instant case, Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand evidently discloses assigning all available advertisement slots. Nazer Zadeh is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of considering the next-highest paramter in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 11, 21: Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Negruseri further discloses: further comprising, receiving user input from the suer device, at the advertisement placement server, to
assign the remaining slots to the other advertisers that do not have the parameter associated with the contract. {see at least fig1, rc112, rc114, [0024]-[0026] different advertisers}
Regarding Claims 22, 25: Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Nazer Zadeh further discloses:
wherein the highest total importance score of the one or more parameters comprises a mathematical sum of all importance scores of the one of the plurality of different configurations. {see at least [0042] adding values (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111) reads on mathematical sum)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh to include additional elements of Nazer Zadeh. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to generate the right parameter. In the instant case, Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh evidently discloses assigning all available advertisement slots. Nazer Zadeh is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a parameter as a mathematical sum in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 24, 27: Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Negruseri further discloses:
wherein the conflict that prevents assigning the number of received advertisements comprises
not satisfying one or more of the one or more of the parameters associated with each separate advertisers. {see at least [0042] mathematical conversions of bids … bid not accepted (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on not satisfying the function)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh to include additional elements of Nazer Zadeh. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to eliminate certain values from consideration, thus avoiding to wasting resources. In the instant case, Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh evidently discloses assigning all available advertisement slots. Nazer Zadeh is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of not satisfying a mathematical function (e.g. a processed bid) in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6-7, 16-17, 23, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negruseri et al (US 2015/0199724), in view of Mehrotra eta l (US 2006/0112049), in further view of Liu et al (US 8,880,438), in further view of Nazed Zadeh et al (US 2012/0158522), in further view of Anand et al (US 2005/0203796), in further view of MacTieman et al (US 2016/0301984).
Regarding Claims 6, 16: Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand does not disclose, however, MacTieman discloses:
wherein assigning the remaining slots to the selected subset of the other advertisers results in resolving the conflict. {see at least fig7. Rc718, [0103] conflict is solved}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand to include the elements of MacTieman. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to increase the efficiency of the ad space allocation. In the instant case, Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand evidently discloses assigning all available advertisement slots. MacTieman is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of resolving an assigning conflict in the same or similar context. Since both assigning all available advertisement slots, as well as resolving an assigning conflict are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand, as well as MacTieman would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand / MacTieman.
Regarding Claims 7, 17: Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand does not disclose, however, MacTieman discloses:
determining, by the advertisement placement server, that assigning the remaining slots to the selected subset of the other advertisers does not result in resolving the conflict; and {see at least [0098] conflicts being unresolvable)}
in response to determining that the conflict is not resolved,
generating, by the advertisement placement server, for display a notification to a user that the conflict cannot be resolved. {see at least [0098] conflicts being unresolvable)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand to include the elements of MacTieman. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create awareness about the possibility that the conflict could not be resolved at satisfaction. In the instant case, Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand evidently discloses assigning all available advertisement slots. MacTieman is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of not being able to resolve an assigning conflict in the same or similar context. Since both assigning all available advertisement slots, as well as not being able to resolve an assigning conflict are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand, as well as MacTieman would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand / MacTieman.
Regarding Claims 23, 26: Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand does not discsloe, however, MacTieman discloses: in response to determining the conflict,
generating, by the advertisement placement server, for display on the user device, an indication of the conflict. {see at least [0098] conflicts being unresolvable)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand to include the elements of MacTieman. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create awareness about the possibility that the conflict could not be resolved at satisfaction. In the instant case, Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand evidently discloses assigning all available advertisement slots. MacTieman is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of not being able to resolve an assigning conflict in the same or similar context. Since both assigning all available advertisement slots, as well as not being able to resolve an assigning conflict are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand, as well as MacTieman would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Negruseri, Mehrotra, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand / MacTieman.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090248513 A1 Aggarwal; Gagan et al. ALLOCATION OF PRESENTATION POSITIONS Co-performance measurements can be determined for a plurality of content items, each co-performance measurement being associated with a corresponding content item and each co-performance measurement being a measure of the effect of the corresponding content item on the performance of one or more other content items that are presented with the corresponding content item. A set of content items can be selected for presentation to a viewer, wherein the set of content items comprises the content items that maximize a cumulative performance of the set of content items. Each content item can be assigned to a presentation position based on the co-performance measurement of each content item.
US 20070028297 A1 Troyansky; Lidror et al. Method and system for information leak prevention A method for mitigating false positive type errors while applying an information leak prevention policy, the method comprising the computer implemented steps of: defining at least one positive criterion for a positive set, wherein the positive criterion comprises at least one indicator of a possible breach of the information leak prevention policy; defining at least one negative criterion for a negative set, wherein the negative criterion comprises at least one indicator of benign traffic; establishing an ambiguity set in association with an intersection between the positive set and the negative set, such that information items in the intersection enter the ambiguity set; defining at least one ambiguity resolution criterion for resolving the ambiguity; monitoring and analyzing electronic traffic, where each information item in the traffic is searched for matches with the positive set; checking for membership of each item in the positive set in the ambiguity set; resolving ambiguities using one of the ambiguity resolution criterion for each member of the ambiguity set and removing items from the positive set accordingly, and applying information leak prevention policy for all items remaining in the positive set following the removal of items using ones of the ambiguity resolution criteria.
US 20080297408 A1 Dai; Liwen L. et al. Partial search carrier-phase integer ambiguity resolution A method for performing integer ambiguity resolution in a global navigation satellite system is disclosed. A set of ambiguities, which are associated with carrier phase measurements of at least some of the signals received from the satellites in an identified set of satellites, are identified. Integer ambiguities are estimated and a best candidate set and a second best candidate set of integer ambiguity values are determined. Upon determining that the best set of integer ambiguity values fail to meet a discrimination test, each ambiguity for which integer ambiguity values in the best candidate set and second best candidate set fail to meet predefined criteria are removed from the set of ambiguities to produce a reduced set of ambiguities. The integer ambiguities in the reduced set of ambiguities are then resolved and an output is generated in accordance with the resolved integer ambiguities.
US 20020136233 A1 Chen, Minghua et al. Coordination architecture for wireless communication devices using multiple protocols A system and methods for coordinating transmissions in a wireless network wherein a plurality of frequency-overlapping protocols are used to exchange information between devices. In this system, a coordination point device integrates a monitoring functionality to identify impending data collisions between the frequency-overlapping protocols. The coordination point device further identifies quality of service parameters to determine if the protocols are operating within desirable ranges. Moderation one or more of the protocols is then performed to avoid data collisions arising from overlapping transmissions between the protocols while maintaining data throughput within acceptable ranges.
US 20140310069 A1 Beraudier; Vincent et al. COORDINATED BUSINESS RULES MANAGEMENT AND MIXED INTEGER PROGRAMMING Embodiments of the present invention provide a method, system and computer program product for an integrated business rules management system (BRMS) and mixed integer programming (MIP) technology application deployment. In an embodiment of the invention, a method of rules processing with MIP constraints can include selecting candidate rules from amongst a set of rules in a rules engine executing in memory of a computer and reducing the candidate rules to rules in a conflict set according to constraints specified in the candidate rules. The method also can include conflict resolving the rules in the conflict set and generating an agenda for the rules of the conflict set. Finally, the method can include adding constraints specified in the rules of the conflict set to working memory of the rules engine and applying the rules in the conflict set in agenda order to the working memory.
US 20140201681 A1 Mahaffey; Kevin Patrick et al. METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING AND DISPLAYING ACTIVITY ICONS ON A MOBILE DEVICE Embodiments are directed to managing applications and displaying icons on a mobile device through processes that monitor usage of the applications by a user, alter a display of an application icon based on the usage of the application and a context of the mobile device, and suggest substitute or additional applications for installation based on the usage of the application. The context may comprise a location of the device, a time and/or frequency of usage of an application, and an activity associated with the usage of the application. The icon may be minimized or eliminated from display if the usage falls below a defined threshold for a context, or it may be maximized if the usage exceeds the defined threshold for the context.
US 20090144217 A1 Bergsten; Bjorn et al. System and methods for managing rules A method of automatically determining firing priority in a plurality of rules. The method includes the steps of determining a level of dependency of each rule; and generating a hierarchy of rules in response to the level of dependency of each rule, wherein the firing priority corresponds to the hierarchy of rules. In another embodiment, the method further includes the step of determining if the hierarchy results in an inconsistency. In another embodiment, the method further comprises the step of determining if the hierarchy results in a loop. In yet another embodiment, the step of determining a level of dependency of each rule is performed in response to an initial event.
US 20150181310 A1 Hancock; Kenneth S. et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PRESENTING ADVERTISEMENT PLAYOUT SUMMARIES IN AN INTERACTIVE DISPLAY Systems, methods, computer program products and apparatus are described for presenting an advertisement playout summary in an interactive display, that involve collecting individual playout statistics corresponding to playout of advertisements from at least one advertising insertion computer system; organizing the individual playout statistics into groups, each group having a group identifier; calculating aggregated playout statistics for each group, the aggregated playout statistics comprising a first statistic calculated for the group; generating display information for a displayable grid of blocks, each block displays the group identifier and at least one of the aggregated playout statistics for a respective group, wherein the size and position of the block in the grid depends on the first statistic; and transmitting the display information to a client device to display the grid. The color of a block corresponding to a respective group can depends on a second statistic.
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 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 independent claims, as amended, result in a specific, practical application that cannot be performed within the limitations of a mind and are practically integrated into a technical application.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears that applicant refers to the provisions of MPEP 2106.05(a).
First, 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.” Resolving advertisement placement conflicts 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 elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, 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.
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 § 112(b).
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.
Applicant submits that the prior art of record does not disclose “using a feasibility relaxation algorithm for mixed integer linear programs”
Examiner agrees. However, Mehrotra discloses:
generating, by the advertisement placement server, a plurality of different
configurations of the parameters associated with other advertisers, from the separate
advertisers, that do not have the first parameter associated with the contract by iteratively
removing or modifying one or more parameters of the parameters associated with the other advertisers using a feasibility relaxation algorithm for mixed integer linear programs, {see at [0013] mixed integer programming; continuous relaxation is feasible (reads on feasibility relaxation)}
Therefore, Mehrotra discloses the amended claim limitation. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
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, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. 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 3697
Prosecution Insights