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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 06/29/2026.
Claims 1,3-5,8,13,15-17,20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 06/29/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “Independent claim 1 recites "ranking, by the one or more processors, the plurality of content groups based on respective request coverage gain for at least one content group of the plurality of content groups relative to other content groups in the plurality of content groups, wherein: the ranking comprises removing keywords from lower ranked content groups that overlap with keywords from higher ranked content groups" and "selecting, by the one or more processors, one or more content groups of the plurality of content groups based on the ranking". At least these features provide for a practical application of generating content delivery campaigns with reduced computational resources. More specifically, by removing overlapping keywords from lower ranked content groups via respective request coverage gain, content group overpopulation is reduced or eliminated, resulting in less data or metadata to be maintained and processed for different content groups for generating the content delivery campaigns. See Specification, [0026]-[0031]. This reduction in data or metadata further improves the overall performance in generating the content delivery campaigns, as redundancies in the plurality of content groups are removed that may skew selection of the content groups. See id. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has "credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining ... as technological improvements". USPTO Memo Re: Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins, page 2 (indicating additional paragraph to be added to MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III)) (emphasis added). Being able to maintain and process less data or metadata for generating a content delivery campaign constitutes a reduction in storage as well as a reduction in system complexity and streamlining. Thus, independent claim 1 improves computer technology (page 2/4)”.
Examiner disagrees. "ranking, by the one or more processors, the plurality of content groups based on respective request coverage gain for at least one content group of the plurality of content groups relative to other content groups in the plurality of content groups, wherein: the ranking comprises removing keywords from lower ranked content groups that overlap with keywords from higher ranked content groups" and "selecting, by the one or more processors, one or more content groups of the plurality of content groups based on the ranking" that result in “generating content delivery campaigns with reduced computational resources”, is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
However, the recitation of “generating content delivery campaigns with reduced computational resources”, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “one or more processors”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied.
Furthermore, Applicant's assertion that the PTAB has "credited benefits including reduce storage, reduced system complexity and streamlinging ... as technical improvements" appears to be a general allegation not supported by any specific examples. As such, the argument is not convincing. There is no indication that any of the alleged decision were precedential and no way for the examiner review the decision to determine whether the reduced storage, reduced system complexity, and streamlining was a result of merely applying the abstract idea itself using a general-purpose computer as is the case in the instant application or conversely, whether the reduced storage, reduced system complexity, and streamlining in such decision was rooted in the additional elements of the claims. Given that MPEP 2106 specifically precludes improvements rooted in an abstract idea itself which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer from being considered an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”), the examiner suspects that any PTAB decision crediting reduce storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining as technical improvements was a result of such an improvement being rooted in an "additional element" of the claim and not rooted solely in the abstract idea itself merely being applied using a general-purpose computer. Please note "additional elements" are define as those portions of a claim which are not part of the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
Additionally, under MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III)), covers the evaluation of whether a claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, incorporating updates such as the precedential decision Ex-parte Desjardins regarding machine learning and AI optimization.
That is in Desjardins decision the improvement was rooted in the "additional elements" of the claim (s). The machine learning model in Desjardins was an applicant invented machine learning model that did not operate in the same manner as traditional machine learning models in that the Desjardins machine learning model included a function internal to the model itself which allowed it to maintain state when the machine learning model was later trained to perform a different task. Thus, unlike traditional machine learning models which suffer from catastrophic forgetting when they are retrained, the Desjardin invented machine learning model does not suffer from such catastrophic forgetting. As such, the Desjardins invented machine learning model provides an improvement over traditional machine learning models which transformed the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or was considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Examiner notes : An improvement that arises from the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (i.e. Being able to maintain and process less data or metadata for generating a content delivery campaign constitutes a reduction in storage as well as a reduction in system complexity and streamlining) . For example, in trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. As thus, independent claim 1fails to improve computer technology. Accordingly, As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “amended independent claim 1 to clarify the one or more content groups are selected to meet or be below a technical capacity limit of the content delivery campaign. This further provides for the practical application of generating content delivery campaigns with reduced computational resources. Selecting content groups to be under a technical capacity limit allows for "reducing or eliminating performance degradation caused by limited resources ... executing a given campaign that is over the limit . . . The selected content groups can also have a lower storage requirement, overall, at least because content groups that do not contribute to a higher total request coverage are omitted." Specification, [0055]-[0056]. Reduction in performance degradation as well as reduction in storage requirements constitutes a reduction in system complexity and streamlining as well as a reduction in storage. See USPTO Memo Re: Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins, page 2 (indicating additional paragraph to be added to MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III)). Thus, independent claim 1, as amended, further improves computer technology. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 recites patentable subject matter. Further, since the dependent claims incorporate all the features of their respective base claims, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2-12 recite patentable subject matter for at least the reasons discussed above, as well as on their own merits. Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 13 and 20 (and claims 14-19 by their dependency to claim 13) recite patentable subject matter for at least the reasons discussed above, as well as on their own merits. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejections (page 3 /4)”.
Examiner disagrees. one or more content groups are selected to meet or be below a technical capacity limit of the content delivery campaign that provides for the practical application of generating content delivery campaigns with reduced computational resources is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
However, the recitation of “generating content delivery campaigns with reduced computational resources”, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “one or more processors”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied.
Furthermore, Applicant's assertion that the PTAB has "credited benefits including reduce storage, reduced system complexity and streamlinging ... as technical improvements" appears to be a general allegation not supported by any specific examples. As such, the argument is not convincing. There is no indication that any of the alleged decision were precedential and no way for the examiner review the decision to determine whether the reduced storage, reduced system complexity, and streamlining was a result of merely applying the abstract idea itself using a general-purpose computer as is the case in the instant application or conversely, whether the reduced storage, reduced system complexity, and streamlining in such decision was rooted in the additional elements of the claims. Given that MPEP 2106 specifically precludes improvements rooted in an abstract idea itself which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer from being considered an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”), the examiner suspects that any PTAB decision crediting reduce storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining as technical improvements was a result of such an improvement being rooted in an "additional element" of the claim and not rooted solely in the abstract idea itself merely being applied using a general-purpose computer. Please note "additional elements" are define as those portions of a claim which are not part of the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
Additionally, under MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III)), covers the evaluation of whether a claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, incorporating updates such as the precedential decision Ex parte Desjardins regarding machine learning and AI optimization.
That is in Desjardins decision the improvement was rooted in the "additional elements" of the claim (s). The machine learning model in Desjardins was an applicant invented machine learning model that did not operate in the same manner as traditional machine learning models in that the Desjardins machine learning model included a function internal to the model itself which allowed it to maintain state when the machine learning model was later trained to perform a different task. Thus, unlike traditional machine learning models which suffer from catastrophic forgetting when they are retrained, the Desjardin invented machine learning model does not suffer from such catastrophic forgetting. As such, the Desjardins invented machine learning model provides an improvement over traditional machine learning models which transformed the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or was considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Examiner notes : An improvement that arises from the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (i.e. Being able to maintain and process less data or metadata for generating a content delivery campaign constitutes a reduction in storage as well as a reduction in system complexity and streamlining) . For example, in trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. As thus, independent claim 1fails to improve computer technology. Accordingly, As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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 directed to a system and a method 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).
However, 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 claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
receiving, a request to generate a content delivery campaign that meets or is below a technical capacity limit, the request comprising an input resource identifier, identifying a source or location of digital content;
determining, one or more themes characterizing the digital content at the resource or location identified by the identified by the input resource identifier;
generating, a plurality of content groups, each content group comprising a respective set of keywords corresponding to a respective corresponding to a respective theme of the one or more themes;
ranking, the plurality of content groups on a respective request coverage gain for at least one content group of the plurality of content groups relative to other content groups in the plurality of content groups, wherein: the ranking comprises removing, keywords from lower ranked content groups that overlap with keywords from higher ranked content groups;
the request coverage gain corresponds to a metric of increased or decreased request coverage of the at least one content group of the plurality of content groups relative to the other content groups in the plurality of content groups, and the request coverage corresponds to a metric of responsiveness of keywords of a content group to request for content;
selecting, one or more content groups of the plurality of content groups based on the ranking to meet or be below the technical capacity limit; and
providing (e.g. transmitting) the one or more content group for generating the content delivery campaign;
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer with one or more hardware processors and configured to execute software instructions ( Technical capacity limit (e.g. a platform) and one or more processors (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers with one or more generic computer component.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, a request to generate a content delivery campaign that meets or is below a technical capacity limit, the request comprising an input resource identifier, identifying a source or location of digital content;
providing (e.g. transmitting) the one or more content group for generating the content delivery campaign;
More The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes). When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of a computer with one or more hardware processors and configured to execute software instructions ( Technical capacity limit (e.g. a platform) and one or more processors (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraph 129 of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, a request to generate a content delivery campaign that meets or is below a technical capacity limit, the request comprising an input resource identifier, identifying a source or location of digital content;
providing (e.g. transmitting) the one or more content group for generating the content delivery campaign;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 13 and 20.
The dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of request coverage gain which is part of the abstract idea (claims 2, 6,14, 18); further limiting ranking plurality of content, which is part of the abstract idea (claims 3-4, 7-8, 15-16 and 19); further limiting generating the plurality of contents, which is part of the abstract idea ( claims 5, 9, 12, 17), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter : The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Roa et al, US Pub No: 2015/0039432 A1 teaches An example system can include a server that includes or is associated with a keyword recommendation module. The keyword recommendation module can be configured to select keywords for a search engine for use in a search engine marketing campaign, wherein the search engine provides more traffic to Internet content of a publisher than other search engines, for the keywords. The module can also be configured to determine, per keyword, user engagement with the Internet content resulting from the traffic provided by the search engine for the keywords, according to one or more of time spent viewing the Internet content, page views of the Internet content, and dwell times. The module can also be configured to score, per keyword, the keywords according to the determined user engagement with the Internet content, and generate keyword recommendations according to the scoring of the keywords.
Altberg et al , US Pub No: 2016/0012476 A1, teaches Systems and methods to provide advertisements based on the content of documents in which the advertisements are presented. One embodiment includes: a web server to receive a request for an advertisement in reference to a document provided to a user by a content provider; a backend server to identify the advertisement based on relevancy of the advertisement to the content of the document and to associate a communication reference with the advertisement and the content provider, the web server to provide the advertisement and the reference for inclusion in the document; and a telecommunication server coupled to a session border controller and the backend server to receive a connection request via the reference, to determine contact information of the advertiser and identify the content provider based on the reference, and to establish the connection between the user and the advertiser using the determined contact information.
As thus, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of the independent claims 1-20. Accordingly, the claims subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art, if the applicant to be able to overcome the claim rejections under 35 USC 101 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Adjaoute, US Pub No: 2019/0213498 A1 teaches An artificial intelligence system comprises a computer network server connected to receive and analyze millions of simultaneous text and/or voice messages written by humans to be read and understood by humans. Key, or otherwise important words in sentences are recognized and arrayed. Each such word is contributed to a qualia generator that spawns the word into its possible contexts, themes, or other reasonable ambiguities that can exist at the level of sentences, paragraphs, and missives. A thesaurus-like table is employed to expand each word into a spread of discrete definitions. Several such spreads are used as templates on the others to find petals that exhibit a convergence of meaning. Once the context of a whole missive has been predicted, each paragraph is deconstructed into sub-contexts that are appropriate within the overall theme. Particular contexts identified are then useful to trigger an actionable output.
Ganesh et al, US Pat No:11/921768 B1 teaches Devices and techniques are generally described for iterative theme discovery in text. In some examples, first text data that is separated into a plurality of documents may be received. In some examples, a codebook comprising a first topic associated with a first set of keywords and a second topic associated with second set of keywords may be identified. Instructions to modify the codebook to generate a modified codebook may be received. The instructions may be effective to add to, delete from, and/or modify at least one of the keywords of the first set of keywords or the first topic. In some further examples, a first document of the plurality of documents may be tagged with the first topic based at least in part on the first keywords of the modified codebook. In some examples, output data may be generated that indicates that the first document pertains to the first topic.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights