DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 23 March 2026 in regard to application no. 18/813,930. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process), device (machine) or non-transitory computer readable medium (manufacture). The claim(s) recite(s) storing data, obtaining additional data, determining an allocation based on a quantity in no particular manner, updating a list, determining a threshold based on the data in no particular manner, and delivering information based on capacity.
These are mental steps which can be done, in the absence of computers, mentally and by consulting paper records. A person can gather or store data, interpret it mentally, peruse lists, and make determinations mentally or by writing on a paper; his ability to do so may be based on capacity such as the amount of available time. None of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology beyond, at most, pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As the claims only manipulate data pertaining to allocation of resources, time intervals and the like, they do not improve the "functioning of a computer" or of "any other technology or technical field". See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea "with, or by use of a particular machine", MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a "transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing", MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea "in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment", MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of algorithmic and technical detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim to patent eligibility.
Claim 11, which has the most, includes a processor and memory storing instructions. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification is clear, ¶ 125, that nothing more than a "general-purpose computing device" is required. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim limitations when considered as an ordered combination - a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps - do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually. The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2-9 and 12-19 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data, and claim 10 simply requires sending data at a certain time.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maalej et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0419368) in view of Hou et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,488,205) further in view of Molka et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0328273).
In-line citations are to Maalej.
With regard to Claim 1:
Maalej teaches: A computer-implemented method for managing resource allocation in a data delivery system, [0018; computers are used for the process; 0002; that they can display advertisements reads on them comprising a data delivery system] comprising:
maintaining, by a computing device, a reference queue in the data delivery system, the reference queue comprising a plurality of reference nodes corresponding to a plurality of reference time points respectively, with respect to a reference time point in the plurality of reference time points, a reference node corresponding to the reference time point comprising:
a reference resource allocation corresponding to the reference time point, representing a quality of resources that are actually consumed by a data delivery request submitted at the reference time point; and
a reference resource allocation threshold corresponding to the reference time point, representing a threshold of the quality of resources, the resource allocation being below the resource allocation threshold… [0022; the system receives and stores a portion "of the advertisements that are to be displayed to" a user; 0032; the advertisements are provided via an "advertisement list" which reads on a queue; abstract; it determines whether an advertisement was displayed to the user "within a time period" and whether the number of times such an advertisement was sent "exceeds a threshold value"; 0013; it provides that the advertisement was "viewed by a specific user for a specific number of times over a specific time period"]
obtaining, by the computing device, a total quality of resource allocations of the data delivery system corresponding to a predetermined time window that comprises a plurality of time points… [id.; the advertisements viewed during the time period reads on this]
determining, by the computing device, a current resource allocation, of the data delivery system, corresponding to a current time point in the plurality of time points based on the total quality of resources; [0025; it selects an advertisement based on the number of views of "rendered advertisements”]
determining, by the computing device, a current resource allocation, of the data delivery system, corresponding to the current time point… based on the current resource allocation, the current resource allocation threshold representing a threshold of the current resource allocation of the data delivery system; and
controlling real-time delivery corresponding to the current time point in the data delivery system based on the current resource allocation threshold. [0058; based on the above determination it may substitute an advertisement]
Maalej does not explicitly teach a total quality of resource allocations being a sum of a plurality of resource allocations that are corresponding to the plurality of time points, respectively, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Hou teaches a cross- selling promotion system [title] that determines what "promotions are selected for recommendation". [Col. 1, lines 51-52] It may base this on a "sum of a number of consumers" who made purchases based on promotions from different services. [Claim 3] It may update a list of impressions and display the updated plurality of impressions. [Claim 9] Promotions may be ranked by similarity using collaborative filtering. [Col. 2, lines 20-22] Hou and Maalej are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for selecting advertisements to serve to consumers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hou with that of Maalej in order to facilitate discovery of promotions that may lead a consumer to make a purchase, as taught by Hou; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply interpreting a datum in the manner of Hou rather than that of Maalej; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Maalej does not explicitly teach updating, by the computing device, the reference queue based on a length of the reference queue or performing a step by searching in the reference queue, but it is known in the art. Molka teaches a workload placement system [title] that allocates resources. [0139] It uses “local search strategies” among a large number of servers using “class clustering”. [0064] It may modify a queue length based on probabilities which, themselves, depend on the present length of the queue. [0083-84; 0110] It improves resource utilization and provides cost efficiency of cloud solutions. [0016] Molka and Maalej are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for allocating resources.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Molka with that of Maalej in order to improve resource utilization and cost efficiency, as taught by Molka; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply managing a queue in the manner of Molka rather than that of Maalej; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
In this and the subsequent claims, that a "total quality of resource allocations" is "a sum of a plurality of resource allocations that are corresponding to the plurality of time points, respectively" consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language which discloses at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to any claimed embodiment and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 2:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of reference time points are within a predetermined time range before the current time point, [Maalej as cited above; as the count is of advertisements that have already been viewed, they must have been viewed in the past] and updating the reference queue comprises: in response to the length of the reference queue being below a predetermined threshold length, updating the reference queue with the reference node corresponding to the reference time point in the plurality of reference time points. [0058; if the number of presentations "does not exceed the threshold value", the specific advertisement is selected to be presented again]
With regard to Claim 8:
The method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the reference queue comprises:
ranking the plurality of reference resource allocations; and
updating the reference queue by performing a monotone operation on the plurality of reference resource allocation thresholds associated with the plurality of ranked reference resource allocations. [Hou, Col. 2, lines 20-22; claim 9 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 9:
The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the current resource allocation threshold comprising:
determining a group of time points that are earlier than the current time point in the plurality of time points in the time window; and
in response to determining that a sum of a group of resource allocations corresponding to the group of time points being below the total quality of resources, determining the current resource allocation threshold. [Hou, claim 3 as cited above in regard to claim 1; previous purchases must have been made before the present time; Maalej, 0058 as cited above in regard to claim 2]
With regard to Claim 10:
The method of claim 1, wherein controlling the real-time data delivery comprises : submitting a data delivery request corresponding to the current time point based on the current resource allocation threshold. [0030; the system may send an "advertisement placement request"; abstract; this is part of the process performed when the "number of times" the advertisement has been sent to a user "does not exceed the threshold value"; that it is done at the present reads on it “corresponding to the current time point”]
With regard to Claim 11:
Maalej teaches: An electronic device, comprising a computer processor [0003; a "processor in a server computing device"] coupled to a computer-readable memory unit, [0018; the processor is combined with a "memory"] the memory unit comprising instructions that when executed by the computer processor implements a method [0065; the memory may store "software instructions" to perform the process] for managing resource allocation, comprising:
maintaining a reference queue in the data delivery system, the reference queue comprising a plurality of reference nodes corresponding to a plurality of reference time points respectively, with respect to a reference time point in the plurality of reference time points, a reference node corresponding to the reference time point comprising:
a reference resource allocation corresponding to the reference time point, representing a quality of resources that are actually consumed by a data delivery request submitted at the reference time point; and
a reference resource allocation threshold corresponding to the reference time point, representing a threshold of the quality of resources, the resource allocation being below the resource allocation threshold… [0022; the system receives and stores a portion "of the advertisements that are to be displayed to" a user; 0032; the advertisements are provided via an "advertisement list" which reads on a queue; abstract; it determines whether an advertisement was displayed to the user "within a time period" and whether the number of times such an advertisement was sent "exceeds a threshold value"; 0013; it provides that the advertisement was "viewed by a specific user for a specific number of times over a specific time period"]
obtaining a total quality of resource allocations of the data delivery system corresponding to a predetermined time window that comprises a plurality of time points… [id.; the advertisements viewed during the time period reads on this]
determining a current resource allocation, of the data delivery system, corresponding to a current time point in the plurality of time points based on the total quality of resources; [0025; it selects an advertisement based on the number of views of "rendered advertisements”]
determining a current resource allocation, of the data delivery system, corresponding to the current time point… based on the current resource allocation, the current resource allocation threshold representing a threshold of the current resource allocation of the data delivery system; and
controlling real-time delivery corresponding to the current time point in the data delivery system based on the current resource allocation threshold. [0058; based on the above determination it may substitute an advertisement]
Maalej does not explicitly teach a total quality of resource allocations being a sum of a plurality of resource allocations that are corresponding to the plurality of time points, respectively, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Hou teaches a cross- selling promotion system [title] that determines what "promotions are selected for recommendation". [Col. 1, lines 51-52] It may base this on a "sum of a number of consumers" who made purchases based on promotions from different services. [Claim 3] It may update a list of impressions and display the updated plurality of impressions. [Claim 9] Promotions may be ranked by similarity using collaborative filtering. [Col. 2, lines 20-22] Hou and Maalej are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for selecting advertisements to serve to consumers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hou with that of Maalej in order to facilitate discovery of promotions that may lead a consumer to make a purchase, as taught by Hou; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply interpreting a datum in the manner of Hou rather than that of Maalej; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Maalej does not explicitly teach updating, by the computing device, the reference queue based on a length of the reference queue or performing a step by searching in the reference queue, but it is known in the art. Molka teaches a workload placement system [title] that allocates resources. [0139] It uses “local search strategies” among a large number of servers using “class clustering”. [0064] It may modify a queue length based on probabilities which, themselves, depend on the present length of the queue. [0083-84; 0110] It improves resource utilization and provides cost efficiency of cloud solutions. [0016] Molka and Maalej are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for allocating resources.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Molka with that of Maalej in order to improve resource utilization and cost efficiency, as taught by Molka; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply managing a queue in the manner of Molka rather than that of Maalej; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 12:
The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein the plurality of reference time points are within a predetermined time range before the current time point, [Maalej as cited above; as the count is of advertisements that have already been viewed, they must have been viewed in the past] and updating the reference queue comprises: in response to the length of the reference queue being below a predetermined threshold length, updating the reference queue with the reference node corresponding to the reference time point in the plurality of reference time points. [0058; if the number of presentations "does not exceed the threshold value", the specific advertisement is selected to be presented again]
With regard to Claim 18:
The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein obtaining the reference queue comprises:
ranking the plurality of reference allocation resources; and
updating the reference queue by performing a monotone operation on the plurality of reference resource allocation thresholds associated with the plurality of ranked reference resource allocations. [Hou, Col. 2, lines 20-22; claim 9 as cited above in regard to claim 11]
With regard to Claim 19:
The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein determining the current resource allocation threshold comprising:
determining a group of time points that are earlier than the current time point in the plurality of time points in the time window; and
in response to determining that a sum of a group of resource allocations corresponding to the group of time points being below the total quality of resources, determining the current resource allocation threshold. [Hou, claim 3 as cited above in regard to claim 11; previous purchases must have been made before the present time; Maalej, 0058 as cited above in regard to claim 12]
With regard to Claim 20:
Maalej teaches: A non-transitory computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by an electronic device to cause the electronic device to perform a method [0003; a "processor in a server computing device"; 0018; the processor is combined with a "memory"; 0065; the memory may store "software instructions" to perform the process] for managing resource allocation in a data delivery system, comprising:
maintaining a reference queue in the data delivery system, the reference queue comprising a plurality of reference nodes corresponding to a plurality of reference time points respectively, with respect to a reference time point in the plurality of reference time points, a reference node corresponding to the reference time point comprising:
a reference resource allocation corresponding to the reference time point, representing a quality of resources that are actually consumed by a data delivery request submitted at the reference time point; and
a reference resource allocation threshold corresponding to the reference time point, representing a threshold of the quality of resources, the resource allocation being below the resource allocation threshold… [0022; the system receives and stores a portion "of the advertisements that are to be displayed to" a user; 0032; the advertisements are provided via an "advertisement list" which reads on a queue; abstract; it determines whether an advertisement was displayed to the user "within a time period" and whether the number of times such an advertisement was sent "exceeds a threshold value"; 0013; it provides that the advertisement was "viewed by a specific user for a specific number of times over a specific time period"]
obtaining a total quality of resource allocations of the data delivery system corresponding to a predetermined time window that comprises a plurality of time points… [id.; the advertisements viewed during the time period reads on this]
determining a current resource allocation, of the data delivery system, corresponding to a current time point in the plurality of time points based on the total quality of resources; [0025; it selects an advertisement based on the number of views of "rendered advertisements”]
determining a current resource allocation, of the data delivery system, corresponding to the current time point… based on the current resource allocation, the current resource allocation threshold representing a threshold of the current resource allocation of the data delivery system; and
controlling real-time delivery corresponding to the current time point in the data delivery system based on the current resource allocation threshold. [0058; based on the above determination it may substitute an advertisement]
Maalej does not explicitly teach a total quality of resource allocations being a sum of a plurality of resource allocations that are corresponding to the plurality of time points, respectively, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Hou teaches a cross- selling promotion system [title] that determines what "promotions are selected for recommendation". [Col. 1, lines 51-52] It may base this on a "sum of a number of consumers" who made purchases based on promotions from different services. [Claim 3] It may update a list of impressions and display the updated plurality of impressions. [Claim 9] Promotions may be ranked by similarity using collaborative filtering. [Col. 2, lines 20-22] Hou and Maalej are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for selecting advertisements to serve to consumers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hou with that of Maalej in order to facilitate discovery of promotions that may lead a consumer to make a purchase, as taught by Hou; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply interpreting a datum in the manner of Hou rather than that of Maalej; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Maalej does not explicitly teach updating, by the computing device, the reference queue based on a length of the reference queue or performing a step by searching in the reference queue, but it is known in the art. Molka teaches a workload placement system [title] that allocates resources. [0139] It uses “local search strategies” among a large number of servers using “class clustering”. [0064] It may modify a queue length based on probabilities which, themselves, depend on the present length of the queue. [0083-84; 0110] It improves resource utilization and provides cost efficiency of cloud solutions. [0016] Molka and Maalej are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for allocating resources.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Molka with that of Maalej in order to improve resource utilization and cost efficiency, as taught by Molka; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply managing a queue in the manner of Molka rather than that of Maalej; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maalej et al. in view of Hou et al. further in view of Molka et al. further in view of Buch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,463,468).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 3:
The method according to claim 2, wherein updating the reference queue comprises: in response to determining that the length of the reference queue being above a predetermined threshold length, removing a reference node corresponding to a target reference time point from the reference queue, the target time point being earlier than other reference time points in the plurality of reference time points.
With regard to Claim 13:
The electronic device according to claim 12, wherein updating the reference queue comprises: in response to determining that the length of the reference queue being above a predetermined threshold length, removing a reference node corresponding to a target reference time point from the reference queue, the target time point being earlier than other reference time points in the plurality of reference time points.
Maalej, Hou and Molka teach the method of claim 2 and device of claim 12, including determining a comparison between a number of view of advertisements above or below a threshold as cited above, but do not explicitly teach deleting an oldest advertisement, but it is known in the art. Buch teaches an Internet based targeted video ad system. [abstract] It determines when an "oldest ad" has been played "the appropriate number of times", [Col. 3, lines 45-46] and allows for only a certain number of advertisements to be played. [Claim 1] It may then delete "the oldest video advertisement" from the pool of available advertisements. [Claim 10] Buch and Maalej are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for presenting advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Buch with that of Maalej, Hou and Molka in order to only display an advertisement an appropriate number of times, as taught by Buch; further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing Buch's steps after those of Maalej. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maalej et al. in view of Hou et al. further in view of Molka et al. further in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0289560).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 4:
The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the current resource allocation comprises:
receiving a resource allocation rate that describes an association relationship between a plurality of resource allocations and the plurality of time points, respectively; and
determining the current resource allocation based on the resource allocation rate and a position of the current time point in the time window.
With regard to Claim 14:
The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein determining the current resource allocation comprises:
receiving a resource allocation rate that describes an association relationship between a plurality of resource allocations and the plurality of time points, respectively; and
determining the current resource allocation based on the resource allocation rate and a position of the current time point in the time window.
Maalej, Hou and Molka teach the method of claim 1 and device of claim 11, but do not explicitly teach using such a relationship, but it is known in the art. Li teaches the use of machine learning to predict content-based actions. [title] It measures a "number of advertising content item impressions" over a certain period of time such as "24 hours", and determines "advertising content items selected by the user, such as by swiping or tapping". [0116] It determines an "amount of time the advertising content is viewed", [0016] and content may be "accessible for a time- limited duration". [0156] Li and Maalej are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for presenting advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Li with that of Maalej, Hou and Molka in order to present a likely most-relevant item to a user, as taught by Li; [0022] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing Li's steps, e.g., after the others. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maalej et al. in view of Hou et al. further in view of Molka et al. further in view of Ma et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0150609).
Claims 5 and 15 are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 5:
The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the current resource allocation threshold comprises:
selecting, from the reference queue, a first and a second reference nodes that match the current resource allocation, the current resource allocation being above a first reference resource allocation in the first reference node and being below a second reference resource allocation in the second reference node; and
obtaining the current resource allocation threshold based on the first and second reference resource allocations.
With regard to Claim 15:
The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein determining the current resource allocation threshold comprises:
selecting, from the reference queue, a first and a second reference nodes that match the current resource allocation, the current resource allocation being above a first reference resource allocation in the first reference node and being below a second reference resource allocation in the second reference node; and
obtaining the current resource allocation threshold based on the first and second reference resource allocations.
Maalej, Hou and Molka teach the method of claim 1 and device of claim 11, including obtaining a threshold as cited above, but do not explicitly teach this data ordering, but it is known in the art. Ma teaches a system for providing advertisement recommendations. [title] It may customize a "digital advertisement" by determining hit has "relevancy scores between pairs of categories"; [0084] for one value to be between two others requires one to be higher and one to be lower. This is in the process of computing the relevancy score, which reads on a threshold. Ma and Maalej are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ma with that of Maalej and Hou in order to provide relevant advertising, as taught by Ma; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply making a determination in the manner of Ma rather than that of Maalej; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 6:
The method according to claim 5, wherein obtaining the current resource allocation threshold based on the first and second reference resource allocations comprises:
obtaining a previous resource allocation threshold corresponding to a previous time point that is earlier than the current time point; and
determining the current resource allocation threshold based on the previous resource allocation threshold, the current resource allocation, and the first and second reference resource allocations. [Maalej, abstract; it uses data about an advertisement "previously sent to [a] user device within a time period" to determine information about a "threshold value"]
With regard to Claim 7:
The method according to claim 5, further comprising: obtaining a predetermined range that specifies an upper threshold and a lower threshold associated with the current resource allocation threshold, wherein determining the current resource allocation threshold comprises at least any of:
in response to determining that the current resource allocation threshold meets the predetermined range, outputting the current resource allocation threshold; or
in response to determining that the current resource allocation threshold does not meet the predetermined range, updating the current resource allocation threshold based on the predetermined range. [Hou, claim 9 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 16:
The electronic device according to claim 15, wherein obtaining the current resource allocation threshold based on the first and second reference resource allocations comprises:
obtaining a previous resource allocation threshold corresponding to a previous time point that is earlier than the current time point; and
determining the current resource allocation threshold based on the previous resource allocation threshold, the current resource allocation, and the first and second reference resource allocations. [Maalej, abstract; it uses data about an advertisement "previously sent to [a] user device within a time period" to determine information about a "threshold value"]
With regard to Claim 17:
The electronic device according to claim 15, the method further comprising: obtaining a predetermined range that specifies an upper threshold and a lower threshold associated with the current resource allocation threshold, wherein determining the current resource allocation threshold comprises at least any of:
in response to determining that the current resource allocation threshold meets the predetermined range, outputting the current resource allocation threshold; or
in response to determining that the current resource allocation threshold does not meet the predetermined range, updating the current resource allocation threshold based on the predetermined range. [Hou, claim 9 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, a queue, even taking the computer-science narrow use of the term (which, of course, is not the interpretation used during examination) is simply a particular type of list known as FIFO or “first in first out”, much like a line at a check-out stand in a grocery store; who goes in first comes out first. Lists, of course, pre-date computers by millenia.
Allocations and time points are abstract data items; merchants and project managers have allocated things since long before computers are available to help, and any analog clock can give you specific information about time points and, before clocks, navigators used celestial bodies to estimate time points; none of this is in any way technical and none requires any technology at all.
Bidding is a long-standing commercial practice that, again, predates computers by many centuries and was traditionally done orally or, more recently in the municipal sphere in the U.S., by accepting bids in writing.
A “computer-implemented method” executed “by a computing device” is simply bare-bones recitation of generic computers, of no avail in the 101 analysis under Alice and its numerous progeny. As it is put in the MPEP, see § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), courts do not distinguish “between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”.
In response to the assertion that the claims “do not merely recite an abstract idea”, the Examiner has never made a contrary statement. However, the Examiner must respectfully disagree with the assertion that the claims “recite a specific technical solution to a concrete technical problem in a data delivery system”.
A “monotone operation” is simply any operation that moves data in a consistent direction. If you start with a number and repeatedly add 1 to it, the result will keep increasing. This is, then, a monotone operation, and requires no technology at all. Lists do not require computers at all, nor does searching, nor does delivering information.
No specific structure is defined or otherwise required of a queue; it is simply a list, as it customarily is. In regard to “significantly more”, Alice required a computer spelling out specific steps. The Examiner sees no non-abstract elements in the claims beyond a generic computer consisting of generic computer components.
The claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In so far as the arguments refer to language added or changed by amendment, the reference of Molka has been incorporated herein to meet the additional claim elements.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694