DETAILED ACTION
This non final office action is in response to applicant’s filing of application number 18/761,163 on 06/12/2026. Claims 21-40 are pending and under examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 12/23/2024 and 2/13/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner’s note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Under Step One: Claims 21-33 are directed to a method (i.e., a process. Claims 34-40 are directed to an electronic device (i.e., a machine). Claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). Thus, the claims fall under one of the four statutory classes of invention under step One.
The claims recite the limitations in the abstract idea highlighted in non-bold.
Claim 21 recites:
causing a first content item related to a first object to be presented at a terminal device corresponding to a content provision platform;
in response to determining detection of a click behavior for the first content item, causing an assistant content item related to the first object to be presented at the terminal device, the assistant content item at least indicating an entry for performing a conversion behavior for the first object; and
determining first expected conversion information for the first content item based on click feedback for the entry, the click feedback indicating whether the entry is clicked at the terminal device, the first expected conversion information indicating a probability that the conversion behavior for the first object is expected to be performed.
Claim 22 further recites wherein the conversion behavior comprises a download behavior on the first object.
Claim 23 further recites wherein the assistant content item further indicates descriptive information related to the first object.
Claim 24 further recites wherein causing the assistant content item to be presented comprises: determining whether the assistant content item is to be presented at the terminal device based at least on a return constraint for the conversion behavior for the first object; and
selectively causing the assistant content item to be presented based on the determination.
Claim 25 further recites training a conversion prediction model based at least on the first expected conversion information, the conversion prediction model being trained to predict conversion information for a content item related to a given object.
Claim 26 further recites wherein training the conversion prediction model comprises: obtaining second expected conversion information for a second content item, the second content item being related to a second object, and the second expected conversion information being determined based on a probability that the conversion behavior for the second object is performed, and the probability being obtained from a platform other than the content provision platform; training a common portion of the conversion prediction model based on the first expected conversion information and the second expected conversion information; training a first output portion of the conversion prediction model based on an intermediate output of the common portion and the first expected conversion information; and training a second output portion of the conversion prediction model based on the intermediate output of the common portion and the second expected conversion information.
Claim 27 further recites predicting a third expected conversion information for a third content item using the trained conversion prediction model, the third content item being related to a third object, and the third expected conversion information indicating a probability that the conversion behavior for the third object is expected to be performed.
Claim 28 further recites wherein an additional assistant content item is presented in response to detecting a click behavior for the third content item, and the method further comprises:
obtaining drop-off information for the third content item, the drop-off information indicating a probability that the conversion behavior is actually not performed when the third expected conversion information indicates that the conversion behavior for the third object is expected to be performed; and determining updated conversion information for the third content item based on the third expected conversion information and the drop-off information, the updated conversion information indicating a probability that the conversion behavior for the third object is actually performed.
Claim 29 further recites determining revenue related information for the third content item based on the updated conversion information and conversion bid information for the third content item, the conversion bid information indicating a bid for a single conversion behavior for the third object.
Claim 30 further recites wherein obtaining the drop-off information comprises: obtaining a trained drop-off prediction model; and
determining the drop-off information for the third content item using the drop-off prediction model.
Claim 31 further recites training the drop-off prediction model by: determining a total number of times a conversion behavior for a fourth object is expected to be performed within a time period when a fourth content item related to the fourth object is presented; determining expected drop-off information for the fourth content item using a to-be- trained drop-off prediction model;
determining, based on the expected drop-off information and the total number of times, a predicted total number of times that the conversion behavior for the fourth object is actually performed within the time period; and updating the drop-off prediction model based on a difference between the predicted total number of times and an actual total number of times that the conversion behavior for the fourth object is actually performed within the time period.
Claim 32 further recites wherein an additional assistant content item is presented in response to detecting a click behavior for the fourth content item, and wherein determining the total number of times the conversion behavior for the fourth object is expected to be performed within the time period comprises:
obtaining a plurality of times that a click behavior for an entry indicated by the additional assistant content item is performed at a plurality of time points within the time range; determining a plurality of conversion return probabilities corresponding to the plurality of time points, a conversion return probability indicating a probability that the number of times the conversion behavior for the fourth object is performed at a corresponding time point has been returned at a latest time point among the plurality of time points; and
determining the total number of times the conversion behavior for the fourth object is expected to be performed within the time period based on the plurality of times and the plurality of conversion return probabilities.
Claim 33 recites:
presenting, at a terminal device corresponding to a content provision platform, a first content item related to a first object;
in response to detecting a click behavior for the first content item, presenting an assistant content item related to the first object, the assistant content item at least indicating an entry for performing a conversion behavior for the first object; and providing click feedback for the entry to a content management system, the click feedback indicating whether the entry is clicked at the terminal device.
Claim 34 recites:
at least one processing unit; and
at least one memory, the at least one memory being coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, cause the device to perform acts comprising:
causing a first content item related to a first object to be presented at a terminal device corresponding to a content provision platform;
in response to determining detection of a click behavior for the first content item, causing an assistant content item related to the first object to be presented at the terminal device, the assistant content item at least indicating an entry for performing a conversion behavior for the first object; and
determining first expected conversion information for the first content item based on click feedback for the entry, the click feedback indicating whether the entry is clicked at the terminal device, the first expected conversion information indicating a probability that the conversion behavior for the first object is expected to be performed.
Claim 35 further recites wherein the conversion behavior comprises a download behavior on the first object.
Claim 36 further recites wherein the assistant content item further indicates descriptive information related to the first object.
Claim 37 further recites wherein causing the assistant content item to be presented comprises: determining whether the assistant content item is to be presented at the terminal device based at least on a return constraint for the conversion behavior for the first object; and selectively causing the assistant content item to be presented based on the determination.
Claim 38 further recites wherein the acts further comprise: training a conversion prediction model based at least on the first expected conversion information, the conversion prediction model being trained to predict conversion information for a content item related to a given object.
Claim 39 further recites wherein training the conversion prediction model comprises:
obtaining second expected conversion information for a second content item, the second content item being related to a second object, and the second expected conversion information being determined based on a probability that the conversion behavior for the second object is performed, and the probability being obtained from a platform other than the content provision platform;
training a common portion of the conversion prediction model based on the first expected conversion information and the second expected conversion information;
training a first output portion of the conversion prediction model based on an intermediate output of the common portion and the first expected conversion information; and
training a second output portion of the conversion prediction model based on the intermediate output of the common portion and the second expected conversion information.
Claim 40 further recites wherein the acts further comprise: predicting a third expected conversion information for a third content item using the trained conversion prediction model, the third content item being related to a third object, and the third expected conversion information indicating a probability that the conversion behavior for the third object is expected to be performed.
Regarding claims 21, 33 and 34, applicant is to be noted that the steps or function of “receiving" are considered as data gathering functions. The step or functions of “causing” and “determining” , involve mental processes and/or generic computer functions.
Claims 21, 33, and 34 are found to include at least one judicial exception, that the resent claims recite steps that can be performed using the human mind, pen, and paper. According to the 2019 Revised Guidance, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) fall into the category of mental processes. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. In particular, the claims recite the following bolded limitations understood to be additional limitations:
Claims 21, 33 and 34 recite a "terminal device" (Claims 21 and 33), a “terminal device”, “processing unit” and “memory” (claim 34). In particular, the claimed "processing unit" is recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claimed "processor" is also seen as generic computer components for identifying, retrieving, generating and transmitting data as the processor performs generic functions without an inventive concept as such do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claimed processing unit or as claimed elements is interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative. The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed
individually.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Each claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because each claim does not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 21, 33 and 34 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
The above recited limitations provide meaningful limitations that transforms the abstract idea into patent eligible. The claims as a whole effect an improvement to another technology or technical field. These limitations in combination provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a practical application.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC§ 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S. C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(l) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in
public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 21, 23, 33-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (US Publication No. 20180150874 hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claims 21, and 33-34, Chen teaches:
causing a first content item related to a first object to be presented at a terminal device corresponding to a content provision platform [Paragraph [0016]);
in response to determining detection of a click behavior for the first content item, causing an assistant content item related to the first object to be presented at the terminal device, the assistant content item at least indicating an entry for performing a conversion behavior for the first object (Paragraph [0026]); and
determining first expected conversion information for the first content item based on click feedback for the entry, the click feedback indicating whether the entry is clicked at the terminal device, the first expected conversion information indicating a probability that the conversion behavior for the first object is expected to be performed (Paragraphs [0027-0028]).
Regarding claim 23, and 36 Corner further teaches wherein the assistant content item further indicates descriptive information related to the first object (Paragraph [0066])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
9. 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.
10. Claims 22 and 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen et al (US Publication No. 20180150874 hereinafter Chen) in view of Corner et al
(U.S. Publication No. 2013/0198011 hereinafter Corner).
Regarding claims 22, and 35, Chen does not explicitly teach but Corner teaches wherein the conversion behavior comprises a download behavior on the first object. Note (paragraph [0033 and 0047] of Corner. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Chen to incorporate the teachings of Corner, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
11. Claims 25 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen et al (US Publication No. 20180150874 hereinafter Chen) in view of Junwei et al (Predicting Different Types of Conversions with Multi-Task Learning in Online Advertising).
Regarding claims 25, and 38, Corner fails to explicitly teach but Junwei et al teach training a conversion prediction model based at least on the first expected conversion information, the conversion prediction model being trained to predict conversion information for a content item related to a given object (Pares 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Chen to incorporate the teachings of Junwei, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 24, 26-32, 37, and 39-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if overcome the 101 rejection and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. As per attached PTO 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROMAIN JEANTY whose telephone number is (571) 272-6732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571 272-6787. 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.
/RJ/
/Romain Jeanty/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights