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
1. The following is a non-final, First Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-35 and 37-48 are pending. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-35 and 37-48 in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 with is acknowledged. The claims in the nonelected Group II (claim 36) and Group III (claim 49).
The Examiner’s Notes
2. Independent claims 1 and 37 as a whole recites a combination of limitations that has been found as define over prior art of record {the combination of Buchalter, (US 2012/0041816 A1), Jiang et al; (2023/0089895 A1), Jackson; (US 2012/0253928 A1), Mitra et al; (US 2020/0226675 A1), and the other prior art of record} fail to fairly teach such a method and system, as claimed as a whole, including the subject matter: “determining, for one or more of the plurality of candidate time windows, a first adjusted rate, wherein the first adjusted rate comprises the utilization rate plus the measure of variability for that candidate time window; determining, for one or more of the plurality of candidate time windows, a second adjusted rate, wherein the second adjusted rate comprises the utilization rate minus the measure of variability for that candidate time window; identifying a first finalist time window from the plurality of candidate time windows, wherein the first finalist time window is the candidate time window for which the first adjusted rate is at a minimum; identifying a second finalist time window from the plurality of candidate time windows, wherein the second finalist time window is the candidate time window for which the second adjusted rate is at a maximum; selecting the shorter of the first finalist time window and the second finalist time window as the selected time window”.
Objections to the Specification (Drawings)
3. There is no drawings were filed. The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). See MPEP 601.01(g) and MPEP 608.02.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (e.g., module) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a monitoring module comprising an offer rate builder, the offer rate builder configured to periodically determine….., an offer module/ the offer module configured to send the advertisement…..” (Claim 1); “the offer module comprises an auction module, wherein the auction module is configured to receive….., wherein the offer module is further configured to send…., wherein the auction module is further configured to user….” (Claim 3); “wherein the auction module is further configured to send….” (Claim 4); “wherein the auction module is further configured to send…” (Claim 5); “wherein the auction module is further configured to send…” (Claim 6); “the auction module is further configured to send…” (Claim 17); “the auction module is further configured to send…” (Claim 18); “the auction module is further configured to send…” (Claim 19); “the auction module is further configured to receive…”(Claim 20); “the auction module is further configured to receive…”(Claim 22); “wherein the offer module further comprises an advertisement request interface…..” (Claim 23); “wherein the offer module further comprises offer generator…..” (Claim 25); “wherein the auction module sends….” (Claim 28); “wherein the offer module further comprises a logging module, the logging module….., the logging module configured to log….” (Claim 30).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-35 and 37-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention:
Independent claims 1 and 37, initially limitation/step 1 recites “a monitoring module comprising an offer rate builder, the offer rate builder configured to periodically determine a utilization rate using a plurality of candidate time windows…….., the offer rate builder further configured to periodically determine for the combination a measure of variability of the utilization rate…..”. However, the claims 1 and 37 then recite “ determining (i) a utilization rate and (ii) a measure of variability of the utilization rate for a plurality of candidate time windows”. The scope of these limitations are confusing since it is unclear whether the later “a utilization rate”, “a measure of variability of the utilization rate”, and “a plurality of candidate time windows” are respectively referring back to ““a utilization rate”, “a measure of variability of the utilization rate”, and “a plurality of candidate time windows” in initial limitation/step 1? Appropriated correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-35 and 38-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for the same reason as indicated in the independent claims 1 and 37.
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.
9. The claimed invention (Claims 1-35 and 37-48) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mathematical Concepts”, which has/have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
10. Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a statutory Category?
Claim 1-35: Yes, these are system claims. The corresponding structure for a monitoring module…..; and an offer module…… are for use by or in connection with one or more processors (Applicant’s specification para 0103), which is directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
Claims 37-48: Yes, these claims are method and therefore are directed to the statutory class of process.
11. Step 2A prong 1, Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B:
Independent claim 1 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to an abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mathematical Concepts”:
Claim 1, limitations 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h of periodically determine a utilization rate using a plurality of candidate time windows, wherein the utilization rate for a combination of a group of advertisement requests, and a rate at which utilizes the group, wherein the group comprises advertisement requests sharing one or more advertisement request parameters, periodically determine for the combination a measure of variability of the utilization rate, send the advertisement request, determine for the combination an optimum offer rate at which to send the advertisement request, wherein determine the utilization rate by (limitation 1): determining (i) a utilization rate and (ii) a measure of variability of the utilization rate for a plurality of candidate time windows (limitation 1a); determining, for one or more of the plurality of candidate time windows, a first adjusted rate, wherein the first adjusted rate comprises the utilization rate plus the measure of variability for that candidate time window (limitation 1b); determining, for one or more of the plurality of candidate time windows, a second adjusted rate, wherein the second adjusted rate comprises the utilization rate minus the measure of variability for that candidate time window (limitation 1c); identifying a first finalist time window from the plurality of candidate time windows, wherein the first finalist time window is the candidate time window for which the first adjusted rate is at a minimum (limitation 1d); identifying a second finalist time window from the plurality of candidate time windows, wherein the second finalist time window is the candidate time window for which the second adjusted rate is at a maximum (limitation 1e); selecting the shorter of the first finalist time window and the second finalist time window as the selected time window (limitation 1f); determining the utilization rate for the selected time window as the utilization rate for the combination (limitation 1g); determining the optimum offer rate at which to send the advertisement request (limitation 1h) falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of commercial or legal interactions (include subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
Further, limitations 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h mentioned above also fall under “Mathematical Concepts” (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) grouping of abstract idea because there must be mathematical operations/algorithm involve (as reflected in dependent claims 9, 13, 45-46 and Applicant’s Specification paras 0005, 0013, 0024, 0042, 0067, 0095….etc., ) in order to determine a utilization rate….; determine a first adjusted rate….; determine a second adjusted rate….; determining the optimum offer rate…..etc.,.
Independent claim 1, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites underlined additional elements (i.e., a monitoring module comprising an offer rate builder; the offer rate builder; a demand-side platform (DSP))
to perform abstract steps/limitations 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h mentioned above. The additional element(s) in all of the steps is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions of computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform/apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h mentioned above; thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 1, the last limitation 1i of “sending advertisement requests to the DSP using the optimum offer rate” is merely receiving transmitting data/sending data, which is considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, it does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the additional element (e.g., DSP/demand side platform) is recited as a destination where information is being sent to, which is considered as general link to technological environment; thus, it does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, again, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Again, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, again, the additional element of using generic computer components (i.e., a monitoring module comprising an offer rate builder; the offer rate builder; a demand-side platform (DSP)….) to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. see MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional steps/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Independent claim 1 (step 2B): The additional underlined elements in claim 1 of (i.e., a monitoring module comprising an offer rate builder; the offer rate builder; a demand-side platform (DSP) is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the underlined additional elements “i.e., a monitoring module comprising an offer rate builder; the offer rate builder; a demand-side platform (DSP ….” is/are amounts no more than mere instructions of computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform/apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h mentioned above; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 1, the last limitation 1i of “sending advertisement requests to the DSP using the optimum offer rate” is merely receiving transmitting data/sending data, which is considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, is not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the additional element (e.g., DSP/demand side platform) is recited as a destination where information is being sent to, which is considered as general link to technological environment; thus, is not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When revaluating the last limitation 1i mentioned above of “sending advertisement requests to the DSP using the optimum offer rate” in step 2B here, the transmitting data/ sending data are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The use of generic computer to display data/transmit data/send data through an unspecified generic computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, and is/are considered as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Thus, evidences has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.07 (a) (III). Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above additional steps/additional elements/additional limitations do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As per independent claim 37: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same/similar analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, a method claim 37 is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same/similar reasons as the system claim(s) 16. The additional underlined components (i.e., an advertisement request allocation platform; a monitoring module comprising an offer rate builder; the offer rate builder; a demand-side platform (DSP) described in independent claim 37 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. They are merely using as tools to implement the identified abstract idea and/or are general link to technological environment, and/or insignificantly extra solution activity. Thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-35 and 38-48 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1 and 37 without including 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. Please notes that the additional elements (e.g., the offer module, the auction module, the offer rate builder, offer generator, a logging module, the monitoring module, storage, and/or interface) in dependent claims 3-9, 11-12, 17-20, 22-35 are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications (as tool to perform the identified abstract idea); thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, in dependent claims 25, 29, 30 and 32, the limitations (e.g., the offer generator is configured to receive an advertisement request from the advertisement request interface; the logging module configured to log the advertisement request; storage is configured to store one or more of the advertisement request……; offer generator retrieves the stored optimum offer……) are merely storing data and gathering data/ receiving data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activities”; thus, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, Looking at the limitations as an ordered combinations adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-35 and 38-48 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure
12. The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Buchalter, (US 2012/0041816 A1), wherein teaches The present disclosure is directed to methods and systems for determining competitive market values for an ad impression on an advertiser exchange. An engine executing on a device may receive a candidate set of inputs associated with ad impressions. The engine may determine competitive market values for an ad impression on an advertiser exchange. The engine may determine candidate clearing prices based on the candidate set of inputs and history of clearing prices on the advertiser exchange. The engine may generate, based on the candidate clearing prices, a competitive market value prediction for the ad impression on the advertiser exchange. The competitive market value prediction may comprise a distribution function of predicted clearing prices on the advertiser exchange. The engine may generate, based on the competitive market value prediction, a fair market value bid for the ad impression in the context of a specific ad campaign.
Jiang et al; (2023/0089895 A1), wherein teaches A method of operating a demand side platform (DSP) includes determining a current state of the DSP, wherein the current state of the DSP is based on a remaining bid budget and remaining number of opportunities, receiving, at the DSP, a bid request for one or more advertisement impressions, and determining an uncertainty of a predicted user response probability. The method further includes determining a risk tendency value based on the current state of the DSP, determining an adjusted value of the one or more advertisement impressions based on the uncertainty and risk tendency, determining a bid price for each of the one or more advertisement impressions based on the adjusted value of the one or more advertisement impressions, transmitting the bid price to an exchange platform to participate in an auction, receiving an auction result and updating the current state of the DSP based on the auction result.
Jackson; (US 2012/0253928 A1), wherein teaches Methods and apparatus are provided for portfolio and demand bucket management across multiple advertising exchanges. Bid requests (typically corresponding to one or more online advertising impressions) are received from a plurality of advertising exchanges. The bid requests are translated into a common format and compared to a predefined target audience specification for one or more advertising campaigns. If the translated bid request satisfies the predefined target audience specification, a bid is submitted for the online advertising impression. The predefined target audience specification is entered using a user interface and can be used for the plurality of advertising exchanges. The translation of the bid requests extracts one or more fields from the bid request and translating the extracted fields into the common format. The submitted bid comprises a dynamically determined bid price. One or more reports can optionally be generated for the plurality of advertising exchanges.
Mitra et al; (US 2020/0226675 A1), wherein teaches The present disclosure relates to generating digital bids for providing digital content to remote client devices based on parametric bid distributions generated using a machine learning model (e.g., a mixture density network). For example, in response to identifying a digital bid request in a real-time bidding environment, the disclosed systems can utilize a trained parametric censored machine learning model to generate a parametric bid distribution. To illustrate, the disclosed systems can utilize a parametric censored, mixture density machine learning model to analyze bid request characteristics and generate a parametric, multi-modal distribution reflecting a plurality of parametric means, parametric variances, and combination weights. The disclosed systems can then utilize the parametric, multi-modal distribution to generate digital bids in response to the digital bid request in real-time (e.g., while a client device accesses digital assets corresponding to the bid request).
Box et al; (US 2017/0255971 A1), wherein teaches Systems and methods for providing an advertisement platform where buyers and sellers can trade advertisement inventory programmatically at local, national, and/or worldwide levels. The advertisement platform server system may include an advertiser facing interface which permits advertisers to generate a request for orders (RFO) for an advertisement campaign which spans multiple advertisement channels. The RFO may be automatically provided to numerous media content providers, which may place committed orders which are to be autonomously accepted upon satisfaction of at least one condition of the RFO, such as a minimum budget. Once the committed orders are accepted, the advertisements may be routed to a traffic management system for publishing.
Williams et al; (2011/0246298 A1), wherein teaches The present solution is directed to methods and systems for maintaining anonymity of segment data from a third party provider while performing segment targeting via a demand side platform (DSP). The DSP receives one or more segment identifiers for segment data from a data supplier. The DSP may provide a pixel for segmented targeting of an impression opportunity for an advertisement exchange. The DSP may receive from the data supplier, a tracking agent to associate data collected via the demand side platform with the segment identifier. A bidder of the DSP provides a placement of an advertisement matched to an impression opportunity, the placement including the tracking agent and the pixel. The DSP may receive segment data from the data supplier based on execution of the tracking agent, the segment data corresponding to the segment identifier for the placement.
Newnham et al; (US 2022/0374944 A1), wherein teaches A hybrid, optimized exchange is provided, the hybrid, optimized exchange operably connected to a demand-side platform (DSP), the hybrid, optimized exchange further operably connected to a supply-side platform (SSP), the hybrid, optimized exchange configured to receive an advertising request, the hybrid, optimized exchange further configured to conduct, using a bid floor, a hybrid, optimized DSP auction of the advertising request among a plurality of DSPs, thereby generating a winning DSP that makes a winning DSP bid in an automated advertising auction system after the SSP initiates an SSP auction of the advertising request, the hybrid, optimized exchange optimizing the bid floor provided to the plurality of DSPs in the hybrid, optimized DSP auction and simultaneously optimizing a shading factor used by the hybrid, optimized exchange to place a hybrid, optimized bid on behalf of the winning DSP in the SSP auction.
Zhou et al; (US 2022/0051130 A1), wherein teaches One or more computing devices, systems, and/or methods are provided. Shaded bid values may be determined and/or submitted to one or more auction modules for participation in auctions. Auction information including at least one of minimum bid values to win associated with the auctions, sets of features associated with the auctions, the shaded bid values associated with the auctions, unshaded bid values associated with the auctions, etc. may be stored in a database. A machine learning model may be trained using a loss function and/or the auction information to generate a first machine learning model with feature parameters associated with features. A bid request, indicative of a second set of features, may be received. The first machine learning model may be used to determine a shaded bid value for submission based upon one or more first feature parameters, of the feature parameters, associated with the second set of features.
Umeda; (US 2013/0080264 A1), wherein teaches A cost-per-second (CPS) based technology for Internet advertising is introduced. In one embodiment, the systems and methods described herein improve efficiency and efficacy of Internet based advertisements. Efficiency is improved by making advertisements relevant to the user; decreasing loss or waste in advertisement space and opportunity for the publisher; and displaying advertisements only for an appropriate duration and being charged according to actual duration for the advertiser. In embodiments, the cost for a certain branding effect can be measured and used with higher accuracy. In embodiments where multiple advertisements are shown simultaneously or at various timings, the technology introduced here provides unique bidding models to allow an advertiser to bid for advertising space, of an advertisement display. The bidding models incorporate bidding based on CPS, a function of CPS and cost-per-click, effective CPS, etc. Conversion models for comparing advertising schema using traditional and newly introduced models are also disclosed.
Mysore et al; (US 2017/0213255 A1), wherein teaches A system to control programmatic advertising traffic that provides to a demand-side platform (DSP) server a desired amount and type of digital advertisement inventory data traffic from at least one real-time-bidding (RTB) advertising exchange. The system includes a network traffic management computing platform that receives the digital advertisement inventory data traffic over at least one network. The system also includes a toggle component of the network traffic management computing platform that restricts delivery of a portion and routes delivery of an unrestricted portion of the digital advertisement inventory data traffic to the DSP server based on pre-selected parameters. The toggle component also routes data representing a bid to the at least one RTB advertising exchange associated with the unrestricted portion of the digital advertisement inventory data traffic delivered to the at least one DSP server.
Xu et al; (US 2016/0092933 A1), wherein teaches A demand-side platform (DSP) may bid on advertising opportunities (e.g., provided by a supply-side platform (SSP)) on behalf of an advertiser wishing to place an advertisement, such as part of an advertisement campaign. A target advertisement may be selected based upon various criteria, and a bid for the target advertisement to run during the advertising opportunity is made in a manner that satisfies one or more goals of the advertisement campaign while also being beneficial to the DSP. For example, the target advertisement may be selected from a reduced problem space where merely advertisements corresponding to a target advertising opportunity class are evaluated, where the target opportunity class corresponds to an opportunity class of the advertising opportunity. Win rate modeling data, inventory cost modeling data, user response modeling data, and/or other information may be used to select the target advertisement.
Buchalter et al; (US 2011/0246297 A1), wherein teaches The present disclosure is directed to methods for identifying a user by a demand side platform (DSP) across advertiser exchanges. The method includes establishing, by a DSP, a cookie mapping for a user. The cookie mapping includes a mapping of user identifiers for the user from advertisement exchanges to a user identifier assigned by the DSP for the user. The DSP stores to the cookie mapping a first mapping to the user identifier of the DSP, comprising a first user id received by a bidder from a first exchange and a first exchange id for the first exchange. A bidder inserts a pixel into a bid for an impression opportunity to a second exchange. The pixel includes a key to the cookie mapping and a second user id for the user and a second exchange id. The second user id is received by the bidder from a second exchange.
Further see other reference in PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuy Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4585 and fax number is 571-273-4585. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30 am to 5: 00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The FAX 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.
/THUY N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622.
Prosecution Insights