DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 7/26/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 1/30/2026.
a. Claims 2-4, 9, 11-14, 16-17, 19, 21 are amended
b. Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 15, 18, 20 are cancelled
c. Claims 22-27 are new
Overall, Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, 19, 22-27 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, 22-27 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 2-11 are directed to a computer implemented method and claims 12-21 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 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 an assignment of the number of received advertisements based on a parameter associated with each separate advertiser by;
[D] converting the parameter associated with the separate advertiser into one or more mathematical functions; and
[E] assigning the number of advertisements to the plurality of advertisement slots based at least in part on satisfying one or more of the one or more mathematical functions;
[F] 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; and
in response to determining the conflict:
[G] assigning 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;
[H] wherein the contract comprises an obligation to assign the first advertisement slot to the first advertiser;
[I] generating a plurality of different configurations based on the parameters associated with the other advertisers that do not have the first parameter associated with the contract by
[J] 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
[K] assigning the 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.
Independent claim 2 (which is representative of independent claim 12) recites: simulating an assignment and converting parameters ([C], [D]); assigning a number of advertisements and determining that there is a conflict ([E], [F]); assigning a first advertisement slot ([G]); generating a plurality of configurations and removing or modifying parameters ([I], [J]); and assigning the remaining slots ([K]), 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. 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)).
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 qualifiers “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 generating the plurality of different configurations of the parameters associated with the other advertisers further comprises
removing or modifying the one or more parameters is performed by using a feasibility relaxation algorithm for mixed integer linear programs.
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 3 (which is representative of dependent claim 13) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 4, which is representative of dependent claim 14, recites:
determining 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 parameter 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 of the one or more mathematical functions.
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, 22-27 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description (Possession)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, 19, 22, 24-25, 27 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 12 are rejected for reciting the subject matter “converting the parameter associated with the separate advertiser into one or more mathematical functions.” which is not adequately described in the specification, in the drawings or in the original set of claims to satisfy the requirements as described in MPEP 2163.05 V: “While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved …” Further "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. "Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement).”
In the instant situation, the application specification attempts to describe the subject matter “converting the parameter associated with the separate advertiser into one or more mathematical functions” Although the specification discloses the operation at [0051]-[0052], no further information, like calculation method or algorithm is provided; i.e. HOW the function is performed. In addition, the specification verbally recites (ipsis verbis) the language of the claim. While the specification discloses the function, it discloses neither the necessary structure, nor the necessary algorithm to perform the function, i.e. HOW the calculation is performed.
The question is, given the disclosure, would a POSITA conclude that the inventor was in possession of the subject matter “converting the parameter associated with the separate advertiser into one or more mathematical functions” in order to cause a system to perform the functions? The answer is clearly “no.” It looks as if the invention recites subject matter that have neither structure nor algorithm.
Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For examination purpose, Examiner will interpret “converting the parameter associated with the separate advertiser into one or more mathematical functions” as any type of calculation, which is what the prior art of record discloses. The reference is provided for compact prosecution purpose.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for compact prosecution purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION – The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, 19, 22-27are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. The claim recites: “assigning the number of advertisements to the plurality of advertisement slots based at least in part on satisfying one or more of the one or more mathematical functions.” However, it is not clear which mathematical function has to be satisfied. Is it a specific mathematical function, or any mathematical function.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim 24, 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. The claim recites: “wherein the conflict that prevents assigning the number of received advertisements comprises not satisfying one or more of the one or more mathematical functions..” However, it is not clear which mathematical function has to be satisfied. Is it a specific mathematical function, or any mathematical function.
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, 4-5, 8-11, 12, 14-15, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negruseri et al (US 2015/0199724), in view of Duggan eta l (US 2016/0063449), 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 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 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, 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 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, Duggan discloses:
generating a plurality of different configurations based on the parameters associated with the other advertisers that do not have the first parameter associated with the contract by {see at least [0031]-[0032] ranking criteria on numerical scale (numerical scale reads on for all advertisers, which includes “other” advertisers as well)}
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 Duggan. 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. Duggan 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 Duggan 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 / Duggan.
Negruseri, Duggan 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, Duggan 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, Duggan 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan / Liu.
Negruseri, Duggan, Liu does not disclose, however Nazer Zadeh discloses:
converting the parameter associated with the separate advertiser into one or more mathematical functions; and {see at least [0042]-[0043] mathematical conversions, like weighting, scaling, adding an offset …}
assigning the number of advertisements to the plurality of advertisement slots based at least in part on satisfying one or more of the one or more mathematical functions; {see at least [0042]-[0045] multiple advertisers; mathematical conversions, like weighting, scaling, adding an offset …; different advertisers … re-ranking the bids }
assigning the 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. {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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, Liu, as well as Nazer Zadeh 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, Duggan, Liu / Nazer Zadeh.
Negruseri, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh / Anand.
Regarding Claims 4, 14: Negruseri, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Nazer Zadeh further discloses:
determining 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 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Negruseri further discloses:
ranking 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 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Negruseri further discloses: further comprising, using user input to
assign the remaining slots to the other advertisers that do not have the parameter associated with the contract comprises removing the highest-ranked parameter. {see at least fig1, rc112, rc114, [0024]-[0026] different advertisers}
Regarding Claims 22, 25: Negruseri, Duggan, 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 parameter 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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 mathematical functions. {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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negruseri et al (US 2015/0199724), in view of Duggan eta l (US 2016/0063449), 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 Poore (US 5,959,574).
Regarding Claims 3, 13: Negruseri, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Negruseri, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand does not disclose, however, Poore discloses:
wherein the generating the plurality of different configurations of the parameters associated with the other advertisers further comprises removing or modifying the one or more parameters by using a feasibility relaxation algorithm for mixed integer linear programs. {see at least (413)/[85:6-25] linear program relaxation algorithm}
Itwould have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Negruseri, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand to include the elements of Poore. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to utilize a proven technology for expected results. In the instant case, Negruseri, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand evidently discloses assigning all available advertisement slots. Poore is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using a feasibility relaxation algorithm in the same or similar context. Since both assigning all available advertisement slots, as well as using a feasibility relaxation algorithm 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, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand, as well as Poore 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, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand / Poore.
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 Duggan eta l (US 2016/0063449), 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, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Negruseri, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand / MacTieman.
Regarding Claims 7, 17: Negruseri, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Negruseri, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand does not disclose, however, MacTieman discloses:
determining 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 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand / MacTieman.
Regarding Claims 23, 26: Negruseri, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Negruseri, Duggan, Liu, Nazer Zadeh, Anand does not discsloe, however, MacTieman discloses: in response to determining the conflict,
generating for display 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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, Duggan, 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 the Claim Objections.
After further considerations, the objections are withdrawn.
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 respectfully submits that the independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application providing a technical solution that cannot practically be performed by the human mind, and recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Applicant makes very general remarks. For specific answers, applicant is request to provide specific arguments/remarks.
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 “assigning a first advertisement slot [ ... ] to a first advertiser [ ... ] 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, wherein the contract comprises an obligation to assign the first advertisement slot to the first advertiser”
Examiner agrees.
However, Negruseri discloses:
assigning 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}
Further, 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)}
Therefore, Negruseri, Anand 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698