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
This office action is responsive to application No. 18/990,692 filed on 12/20/2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims(s) 1, 9, and 15 recite:
determining, by a processor, an inventory of a plurality of impression opportunities;
calculating, by a processor, a relevance score for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities based at least on a calculated first relevance of each targeted viewer among a plurality of targeted viewers for the respective impression opportunity;
generating, by the processor, a model for predicting a transaction parameter for each impression opportunity based at least on data associated with historical impression opportunities;
determining, by the processor and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and
generating one or more recommendations for a selected impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities based on the predicted transaction parameter predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity and the calculated relevance score for the selected impression opportunity.
Including, but not limited to the limitation(s) recited above, as drafted, the limitation(s), under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions in the form of advertising) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, “server”, “non-transitory computer readable medium…” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed through human activity. For example, but for the “a processor”, “server”, “non-transitory computer readable medium…” language; determining, calculating, generating…, etc in the context of this claim encompasses computing a transaction parameter of an impression opportunity, and providing a recommendation of the advertising. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions in the form of advertising), but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 which further define the calculating, generating steps, along with identifying and sorting steps, do not amount to significantly more for similar reason(s) as recited above as they still fall under methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions in the form of advertising). Additionally, the recitation of generic computer components, do not add more to the judicial exception.
In regards to claims 1-20, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using “a processor”, “server”, “non-transitory computer readable medium…” to perform the determining, calculating, generating…, steps. The “a processor”, “server”, “non-transitory computer readable medium…” in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining, calculating, generating, identifying, sorting…) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a processor”, “server”, “non-transitory computer readable medium…” to perform both the steps above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) Applicants assert on P.12-13 that “Specifically, claim 1, as amended, is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A prong one because the claim is directed to multiple technical improvements, including e.g., an improved method for recommending electronic media placement for multiple content providers determining, based on a model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity. Furthermore, the method requires the use of the following technical elements:
• Processor
• Training a model
• Electronic media
• Impression opportunity inventories
• Calculated relevance of a targeted viewer
• Transaction parameter prediction model
• Impression recommendation and prediction
Each of these elements are not methods of organizing human activity, but
instead provide a technical solution to a technical problem.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“processor”, by merely stating a processor for each step does not convert commercial interactions into a technical improvement in computing.
“Training a model” based on data associated with historical impression opportunities is generic supervised learning applied to ad-pricing records. No architectural, algorithmic, or training methodology improvement is recited.
“Electronic media” and “Impression opportunity inventories” relate to advertising transactions, not improvements on how computers render, store, or transmit data.
“Calculated relevance of a targeted viewer” relates to audience matching function which is a marketing/commercial concept executed by the processor. It does not recite a novel computational technique for processing viewer data.
“Transaction parameter prediction model” refers to a generic predictive tool applied to historical advertising pricing data to forecast transaction values for ad inventory. Predicting the value from historical impression pricing data is commercial forecasting related to advertisement placement. Its use does not improve computer functioning and merely implements conventional commercial forecasting within advertisement placement workflow.
“Impression recommendation and prediction” is a commercial output. The recommendation about advertisement placement is a marketing activity, not a technical artifact.
B) Applicant asserts on P.13 that “The claim necessarily requires a computer, and accordingly, is not directed to an abstract idea.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The presence of generic computer components does not transform the abstract idea into eligible subject matter. An abstract idea does not become patent-eligible because it was implemented on a computer.
C) Applicant asserts on P.13 that “Further, the combination of the claim features are not mere routine and conventional features under Step 2A prong 2. Rather, the unique combination of features recited is directed to an inventive concept. As indicated in the Office Action, there are no prior art reference that teach or suggest all of the features here, much less the combination of all the features here, nor has the Office Action established that the disclosures are "routine and conventional."
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The absence of prior art rejection is not a finding that the claims are patent eligible under 101. Additionally applicant’s assertion that no prior art reference teaches or suggest all of the features does not establish that the claim recites an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2A prong two states whether or not the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Whether additional element individually and as a combination add significantly more than the abstract advertising/commercial activity itself. Here, the additional elements are direct to a generic computer implementation, where reciting steps are performed “by a processor” does not transform the claimed method into patent-eligible subject matter.
Please also see 101 rejection above and Examiner’s response in parts A-B regarding why there isn’t significantly more and claims continue to be directed to an abstract idea. The recited claims as indicated above are independently well known in advertising and real-time bidding.
Therefore, based on the above. The claims are still subject to the 101 rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,104,411 in view of Emans et al. (US 2014/0196081). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim and patented application claims.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 15-16, and 18 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claim 1, 6, and 11 of patented application except that pending application in claims 1, 9, and 15 contains additional limitation “generate a model for predicting a transaction parameter for each impression opportunity based at least on data associated with historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and the predicted transaction parameter predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity”.
In an analogous art, Emans teaches “generate a model for predicting a price for each impression opportunity based at least on historical prices of historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and a price predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity” (Paragraph 0038, 0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system to include generate a model for predicting a price for each impression opportunity based at least on historical prices of historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and a price predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity, as taught by Emans, for the advantage of taking advantage of past pricing data, in order to aid in suggesting/setting appropriate pricing, without unduly burdening the user.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 5, 10, and 15 of patented application.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 2, 7, and 12 of patented application.
Claims 7 and 20 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 3, 8, and 13 of patented application.
Claims 8 and 14 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 4, 9, and 14 of patented application.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,567,820 in view of Emans et al. (US 2014/0196081). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim and patented application claims.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 15-16, and 18 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claim 1, 6, and 11 of patented application except that pending application in claims 1, 9, and 15 contains additional limitation “generate a model for predicting a transaction parameter for each impression opportunity based at least on data associated with historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and the predicted transaction parameter predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity”.
In an analogous art, Emans teaches “generate a model for predicting a price for each impression opportunity based at least on historical prices of historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and a price predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity” (Paragraph 0038, 0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system to include generate a model for predicting a price for each impression opportunity based at least on historical prices of historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and a price predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity, as taught by Emans, for the advantage of taking advantage of past pricing data, in order to aid in suggesting/setting appropriate pricing, without unduly burdening the user.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 5, 10, and 15 of patented application.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 2, 7, and 12 of patented application.
Claims 7 and 20 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 3, 8, and 13 of patented application.
Claims 8 and 14 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 4, 9, and 14 of patented application.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17-19, 20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 11-14, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,911,808 in view of Emans et al. (US 2014/0196081). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim and patented application claims.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claim 1, 6, and 11 of patented application except that pending application in claims 1, 9, and 15 contains additional limitation “generate a model for predicting a transaction parameter for each impression opportunity based at least on data associated with historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and the predicted transaction parameter predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity”.
In an analogous art, Emans teaches “generate a model for predicting a price for each impression opportunity based at least on historical prices of historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and a price predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity” (Paragraph 0038, 0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system to include generate a model for predicting a price for each impression opportunity based at least on historical prices of historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and a price predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity, as taught by Emans, for the advantage of taking advantage of past pricing data, in order to aid in suggesting/setting appropriate pricing, without unduly burdening the user.
Claim 2 of instant application corresponds to that of Claim 2 of patented application.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 8, 14, and 20 of patented application.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 4, 11, and 17 of patented application.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 5 and 18 of patented application.
Claims 7 and 20 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 6, 12, 19 of patented application.
Claims 8 and 14 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 7 and 13 of patented application.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17-19, 20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 11-14, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,197,047 in view of Emans et al. (US 2014/0196081). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim and patented application claims.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claim 1, 6, and 11 of patented application except that pending application in claims 1, 9, and 15 contains additional limitation “generate a model for predicting a transaction parameter for each impression opportunity based at least on data associated with historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and the predicted transaction parameter predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity”.
In an analogous art, Emans teaches “generate a model for predicting a price for each impression opportunity based at least on historical prices of historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and a price predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity” (Paragraph 0038, 0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system to include generate a model for predicting a price for each impression opportunity based at least on historical prices of historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and a price predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity, as taught by Emans, for the advantage of taking advantage of past pricing data, in order to aid in suggesting/setting appropriate pricing, without unduly burdening the user.
Claim 2 of instant application corresponds to that of Claim 2 of patented application.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 8, 14, and 20 of patented application.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 4, 11, and 17 of patented application.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 5 and 18 of patented application.
Claims 7 and 20 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 6, 12, 19 of patented application.
Claims 8 and 14 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 7 and 13 of patented application.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17-19, 20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 11-14, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,601,702 in view of Emans et al. (US 2014/0196081). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim and patented application claims.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claim 1, 6, and 11 of patented application except that pending application in claims 1, 9, and 15 contains additional limitation “generate a model for predicting a transaction parameter for each impression opportunity based at least on data associated with historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and the predicted transaction parameter predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity”.
In an analogous art, Emans teaches “generate a model for predicting a price for each impression opportunity based at least on historical prices of historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and a price predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity” (Paragraph 0038, 0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system to include generate a model for predicting a price for each impression opportunity based at least on historical prices of historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and a price predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity, as taught by Emans, for the advantage of taking advantage of past pricing data, in order to aid in suggesting/setting appropriate pricing, without unduly burdening the user.
Claim 2 of instant application corresponds to that of Claim 2 of patented application.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 8, 14, and 20 of patented application.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 4, 11, and 17 of patented application.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 5, 12, and 18 of patented application.
Claims 7 and 20 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 6 and 19 of patented application.
Claims 8 and 14 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 7 and 13 of patented application.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-15, 17-19, 20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-8, 11-14, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,191 in view of Emans et al. (US 2014/0196081). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim and patented application claims.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claim 1, 6, and 11 of patented application except that pending application in claims 1, 9, and 15 contains additional limitation “generate a model for predicting a transaction parameter for each impression opportunity based at least on data associated with historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and the predicted transaction parameter predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity”.
In an analogous art, Emans teaches “generate a model for predicting a price for each impression opportunity based at least on historical prices of historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and a price predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity” (Paragraph 0038, 0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system to include generate a model for predicting a price for each impression opportunity based at least on historical prices of historical impression opportunities; determining and based on the model, a predicted transaction parameter for each impression opportunity among the plurality of impression opportunities; and a price predicted by the model for the selected impression opportunity, as taught by Emans, for the advantage of taking advantage of past pricing data, in order to aid in suggesting/setting appropriate pricing, without unduly burdening the user.
Claim 2 of instant application corresponds to that of Claim 2 of patented application.
Claim 3 of instant application corresponds to that of Claim 3 of patented application.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 8, 14, and 20 of patented application.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 4, 11, and 17 of patented application.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 5, 12, and 18 of patented application.
Claims 7 and 20 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 6 and 19 of patented application.
Claims 8 and 14 of instant application corresponds to that of Claims 7 and 13 of patented application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON K LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1446. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. 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 Information 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JASON K LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights