AIA
DETAILED ACTION
Status of claims
Under the new administration, PTO expects nor more than 1 interview per new application or RCE.
Claims 1-5 examined. Filed 08/15/2024.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
85
321
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Step 1: (MPEP 2106.03)
The claims and dependents are directed to statutory classes (1 process, 5 machine). The claims herein are directed to subject matter which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception -- law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.04).
The Claims: rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites an abstract idea,
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The claims are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
CLAIM 1
1. A method for optimizing placement of digital advertising content into digital publication content in a secure digital environment, comprising:
O over a digital data communication network coupled to a system data interface, receiving input data from a plurality of input data sources, wherein receiving said input data comprises receiving a digital advertising content from a plurality of advertising content in an advertising content pool and further comprises receiving a digital publication content from a plurality of digital publication contents in a publisher content pool
O in a processor of said system, configured and arranged to machine process said input data and stored program instructions, providing said digital advertising content and said digital publication content to a matching engine of said processor, and further determining a match between said digital advertising content and said digital publication content from among the plurality of digital publication contents
O in a content generation engine of said processor, concurrently modifying
(a) said digital advertising content to generate a corresponding modified digital advertising content and
(b) said digital publication content to generate a corresponding modified digital publication content
O in an analytics engine of said processor, analyzing said modified digital advertising content and said modified digital publication content using one or more reinforcement machine learning models, whereby said modified digital advertising content and said modified digital publication content are determined to meet a programmed matching criterion
O in a placement module of said processor, placing said modified digital advertising content within a digital environment of said modified digital publication content.
bold = judicial exception not bold = apply it MPEP 2105-2106
5 is like 1 except 5 adds generic additional elements generally applied blockchain and medium
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
CLAIM 2
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising provenancing said digital advertising content and said digital publication content, using a secure blockchain infrastructure coupled to said system and data communication network, to provide a respective trusted attribution of each of said digital advertising content and said digital publication content.
Examiner
Idea itself + generic additional elements generally applied
CLAIM 3
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising iteratively determining a system performance metric and repeating the steps of modifying said digital advertising content and said digital publisher content until said performance metric meets a defined value, at which time the modified digital advertising content is placed into the corresponding modified digital publisher content for placement onto a space in said network.
Examiner
Idea itself + generic additional elements generally applied
CLAIM 4
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising iteratively repeating the steps of modifying said digital advertising content and said digital publisher content until a convergence is reached corresponding to an optimum matching and modification of said digital advertising content and said digital publisher content, at which time the modified digital advertising content is placed into the corresponding modified digital publisher content for placement onto a space in said network.
Examiner
Idea itself + generic additional elements generally applied
Computer implemented hedging
Bilski
Computer implemented clearinghouse
Alice
Computer implemented targeted marketing
HERE
Claims are Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group)
The claim simulates long-standing commercial practice, fundamental economics, organizing human behavior, and to the idea the claim says in effect ‘apply it’ MPEP 2106.05f with generic elements generally applied.
SAP America (CAFC):
“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct” from demonstrating novelty or nonobviousness.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
The claim says one is to take the idea and “apply it” with generic elements generally applied.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element -- recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional step MPEP 2106.05 is mere applying the idea on a computer. See (MPEP 21056.05
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim recites additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See (MPEP 21056.05 Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
35 U.S.C. 103
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 differences 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 in which the invention was made.
MPEP 2123: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1983) A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).”
Claims rejected under 35 USC 103 over
Henkin Hybrid Contextual Advertising and Related Content Analysis and Display US 20110213655 in view of
Zhou US 11847670 Reinforcement Learning for Real-Time Content Selection
CLAIM 1
CLAIM 3
CLAIM 4
CLAIM 1 5
1. A method for optimizing placement of digital advertising content into digital publication content in a secure digital environment, comprising:
O over a digital data communication network coupled to a system data interface, receiving input data from a plurality of input data sources, wherein receiving said input data comprises receiving a digital advertising content from a plurality of advertising content in an advertising content pool and further comprises receiving a digital publication content from a plurality of digital publication contents in a publisher content pool
O in a processor of said system, configured and arranged to machine process said input data and stored program instructions, providing said digital advertising content and said digital publication content to a matching engine of said processor, and further determining a match between said digital advertising content and said digital publication content from among the plurality of digital publication contents
O in a content generation engine of said processor, concurrently modifying
(a) said digital advertising content to generate a corresponding modified digital advertising content and
(b) said digital publication content to generate a corresponding modified digital publication content
O in an analytics engine of said processor, analyzing said modified digital advertising content and said modified digital publication content using one or more reinforcement machine learning models, whereby said modified digital advertising content and said modified digital publication content are determined to meet a programmed matching criterion
O in a placement module of said processor, placing said modified digital advertising content within a digital environment of said modified digital publication content.
Henkin Hybrid Contextual Advertising and Related Content Analysis and Display US 20110213655
Fig 1 & text
NOT EXPLICT IN Henkin is reinforcement learning in all the aspects above
But see
US 11847670 Reinforcement Learning for Real-Time Content Selection
Abstract Fig 1 & text
It would have been obvious looking at Henkin discussion of reinforcement learning ¶ 784 and search the works of colleagues in the art and find Zhou using reinforcement learning for real-time content selection and combine the two for the advantage of optimized content selection (Zhou Abstract) substituting Zhou’s inventory providers (advertising inventor provider and publisher inventor provider) with Henkin’s advertiser and publisher ¶ 156 174 Fig 1 & text. This is simply Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods
CLAIM 3
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising
O iteratively determining a system performance metric and repeating the steps of modifying said digital advertising content and said digital publisher content until said performance metric meets a defined value, at which time the modified digital advertising content is placed into the corresponding modified digital publisher content for placement onto a space in said network.
Henkin at least ¶ 89 126 236-251
Motivation to combine above
CLAIM 4
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising
O iteratively repeating the steps of modifying said digital advertising content and said digital publisher content until a convergence is reached corresponding to an optimum matching and modification of said digital advertising content and said digital publisher content, at which time the modified digital advertising content is placed into the corresponding modified digital publisher content for placement onto a space in said network.
Henkin at least ¶ 89 126 236-251
Motivation to combine above
Claims 2 rejected under 35 USC 103 over
Henkin Hybrid Contextual Advertising, Related Content Analysis, Display US 20110213655 in view of
Bramberger US 20190122258 AI Content Blockchain in view of
Zhou US 11847670 Reinforcement Learning for Real-Time Content Selection
CLAIM 2
NOT EXPLICT IN Henkin is provenancing
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising
O provenancing said digital advertising content and said digital publication content, using a secure blockchain infrastructure coupled to said system and data communication network, to provide a respective trusted attribution of each of said digital advertising content and said digital publication content.
NOT EXPLICT IN Henkin is reinforcement learning in all the aspects above
But see
20190122258 Bramberger AI Content Blockchain e.g. ¶ 7-8
It would have been obvious looking at Henkin discussion of reinforcement learning ¶ 784 and search the works of colleagues in the art and find Bramberger AI Content Blockchain and combine the two for the advantage of optimized content selection and combine with Brambeger for the advantage of provenanceing (Bramberger’s blockchain). This is simply Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods
CLAIM 5
5. A system for securely provenancing and optimally placing a digital advertising content into a digital publication content, comprising:
o a data interface placing said system in data communication with a digital data communication network coupled to:
an advertising content pool, a publisher content pool, and a blockchain environment wherein content in said advertising and publisher pools is provenanced using said blockchain environment;
a processor, in data communication with said data interface, the processor comprising logic configured and arranged to programmably execute machine-readable instructions, said logic and instructions comprising a content matching engine, an analytics engine and a content generation engine;
o said content matching engine coupled and configured to receive said digital advertising content and said digital publisher content and providing an output representing a logical match between said digital advertising content and said digital publisher content;
o said content generation engine coupled and configured to receive said digital advertising content and said digital publisher content and output from said analytics engine, to modify at least one of said digital advertising content and said digital publisher content to generate a modified digital advertising content and said modified digital publisher content, respectively; said analytics engine coupled and configured to receive an output from said matching engine and at least one reinforcement machine learning module and
o providing an output representing an advertising effectiveness based on said modified digital advertising content and said modified digital publisher content; and
o wherein said content generation engine is further coupled and configured to dynamically generate and output a provenanced, optimized and dynamically cross-coupled content comprising said modified digital advertising content and said modified digital publisher content in a space in said digital data communication network.
Rejected same as claims 1 and 2
CONCLUSION
During prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude See, eg, Johnson & Johnston Assoc Inc v RE Serv Co, 285 F3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed Cir 2002) (en banc) As stated in Halliburton Energy Servs, Inc v M-I LLC, 514 F3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (CAFC 2008):
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation”
bbaggot@uspto.gov
Pertinent prior art cited but not relied upon
US20110213655
US Pat 11847670 Reinforcement Learning for RealTime Content Selection
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BREFFNI X BAGGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-7154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-10a, 12p-6p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
BREFFNI BAGGOT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621