DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 4/14/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 10, the claims recite, in part, (S1) capturing at least a portion of the respective content of a plurality of web pages; (S2) transforming the captured content of the web pages to obtain a content description of each respective web page; (S3) creating web page groups that contain web pages with content descriptions that are similar to each other to at least a predetermined degree; (S4) placing the same advertisement on a plurality of web pages of a first web page group and a second web page group; (S5) capturing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the plurality of web pages of the first and second web page groups within a predetermined time period; (S6) comparing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the web pages of the first web page group with those of the second web page group; and (S7) continuing to use the advertisement on the web pages of the web page group with the higher number of clicks and discontinuing its use on the web pages of the group with the lower number of clicks.
Regarding claims 11, 12, the claims recite, in part, (S1) capturing at least a portion of the respective content of a plurality of web pages; (S2) transforming the captured content of the web pages to obtain a content description of each respective web page; (S3) creating web page groups that contain web pages with content descriptions that are similar to each other to at least a predetermined degree; (S4) placing the same advertisement on a plurality of web pages of a first web page group and a second web page group; (S5) capturing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the plurality of web pages of the first and second web page groups within a predetermined time period; (S6) comparing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the web pages of the first web page group with those of the second web page group; and (S7) continuing to use the advertisement on the web pages of the web page group with the higher number of clicks, and discontinuing its use on the web pages of the group with the lower number of clicks, wherein steps (S4) to (S7) are performed at least pairwise for a plurality of web pages, and each web page is assigned a vector from a predetermined vector space, in which linearly independent vectors represent web pages whose content descriptions are not similar to one another.
Regarding claims 13, 14, the claims recite, in part, (S1) capturing at least a portion of the respective content of a plurality of web pages; (S2) transforming the captured content of the web pages to obtain a content description of each respective web page; (S3) creating web page groups that contain web pages with content descriptions that are similar to each other to at least a predetermined degree; (S4) placing the same advertisement on a plurality of web pages of a first web page group and a second web page group; (S5) capturing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the plurality of web pages of the first and second web page groups within a predetermined time period; (S6) comparing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the web pages of the first web page group with those of the second web page group; (S7) continuing to use the advertisement on the web pages of the web page group with the higher number of clicks, and discontinuing its use on the web pages of the group with the lower number of clicks; and (S8) instead of or in addition to continuing to use the advertisement on the web pages of the group with the higher number of clicks, placing an alternative advertisement on said web pages, wherein the content description of the alternative advertisement is similar - to at least a predetermined degree - to the content description of the previously used advertisement.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites grouping web pages and comparing performance of advertising across groups of web pages, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or 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. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of computer-implemented (claims 1, 11, 13, merely implies computer functionality without actually claiming any), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claims 10, 12, 14), and processor (claims 10, 12, 14). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of capturing, transforming, creating, placing, comparing, continuing, and discontinuing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, 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 a computer, or merely uses a computer 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.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using computer-implemented (claims 1, 11, 13, merely implies computer functionality without actually claiming any), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claims 10, 12, 14), and processor (claims 10, 12, 14) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a 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 a computer, 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 a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Page 5, general purpose computing on graphics processing units); 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.
The dependent claims 2-10 appear to merely limit pairwise performance of steps, use of a large language model, assigning of vectors, use of cosine to measure similarity, and placement of an alternative advertisement, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The computer-implemented (claims 1, 11, 13, merely implies computer functionality without actually claiming any), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claims 10, 12, 14), and processor (claims 10, 12, 14) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of capturing, transforming, creating, placing, comparing, continuing, and discontinuing, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the computer-implemented (claims 1, 11, 13, merely implies computer functionality without actually claiming any), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claims 10, 12, 14), and processor (claims 10, 12, 14) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-14 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (U.S. Pub No. 2015/0213481) in view of Meltzer (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0093331).
Regarding claims 1, 10, Yuan teaches (S4) placing the same advertisement on a plurality of web pages of a first web page group and a second web page group (Paragraphs 0009, 0046, to collect statistics about placed ads, the ads must be placed); (S5) capturing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the plurality of web pages of the first and second web page groups within a predetermined time period (Paragraphs 0009, 0046, collecting click-through-rates for website categories); (S6) comparing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the web pages of the first web page group with those of the second web page group (Paragraph 0045, ads perform better on one site vs. another); and (S7) continuing to use the advertisement on the web pages of the web page group with the higher number of clicks and discontinuing its use on the web pages of the group with the lower number of clicks (Paragraph 0045, spend budget on categories of web sites that provide higher returns, thus lowering the budget, potentially to zero, on categories of web sites that do not perform as well).
Yuan does not appear to specify (S1) capturing at least a portion of the respective content of a plurality of web pages; (S2) transforming the captured content of the web pages to obtain a content description of each respective web page; (S3) and creating web page groups that contain web pages with content descriptions that are similar to each other to at least a predetermined degree. However, Meltzer teaches (S1) capturing at least a portion of the respective content of a plurality of web pages (Paragraphs 0023, analyze page content); (S2) transforming the captured content of the web pages to obtain a content description of each respective web page (Paragraphs 0023, 0028, using words and phrases to determine a page summary); (S3) and creating web page groups that contain web pages with content descriptions that are similar to each other to at least a predetermined degree (Paragraphs 0028, 0059, create classification scheme of similar websites based on the summaries). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to group web sites according to content since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Yuan does not appear to specify steps (S4) to (S7) are performed at least pairwise for a plurality of web pages. However, A/B testing, also known as bucket testing, is an old and well known form of pairwise comparative analysis that has been around long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use A/B testing to compare web site groups since A/B testing is a powerful tool for comparing 2 values to determine which is more effective.
Regarding claim 4, Yuan does not appear to specify each web page is assigned a vector from a predetermined vector space, in which linearly independent vectors represent web pages whose content descriptions are not similar to one another. However, Meltzer teaches each web page is assigned a vector from a predetermined vector space, in which linearly independent vectors represent web pages whose content descriptions are not similar to one another (Paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to group web sites according to content since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Yuan does not appear to specify the similarity measure between content descriptions is based on the cosine similarity of the vectors representing the content of the two web pages. However, Meltzer teaches the similarity measure between content descriptions is based on the cosine similarity of the vectors representing the content of the two web pages (Paragraph 0069). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to group web sites according to content since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Yuan teaches (S8) in addition to continuing to use the advertisement on the web pages of the group with the higher number of clicks, placing an alternative advertisement on said web pages (Paragraph 0045, Yuan is capable of being used for numerous advertisements, should another advertisement be appropriate for a website category, the system of Yuan would suggest increasing an advertising budget so that the other ad would appear on the website).
Yuan does not appear to specify wherein the content description of the alternative advertisement is similar - to at least a predetermined degree - to the content description of the previously used advertisement. However, Meltzer teaches wherein the content description of a document is similar - to at least a predetermined degree - to the content description of the previously used document (Paragraph 0069, nothing prevents the same method used for website documents may be used for advertising documents). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine similarity between documents since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Yuan does not appear to specify the alternative advertisement is assigned a vector from a predetermined vector space, in which linearly independent vectors represent advertisements whose content descriptions are not similar to one another. However, Meltzer teaches the alternative document is assigned a vector from a predetermined vector space, in which linearly independent vectors represent documents whose content descriptions are not similar to one another (Paragraph 0023, nothing prevents the same method used for website documents may be used for advertising documents). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine similarity between documents since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 9, Yuan does not appear to specify the similarity between the content descriptions of two advertisements is determined using cosine similarity. However, Meltzer teaches the similarity between the content descriptions of two documents is determined using cosine similarity (Paragraph 0069, nothing prevents the same method used for website documents may be used for advertising documents). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine similarity between documents since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 11, 12, Yuan teaches (S4) placing the same advertisement on a plurality of web pages of a first web page group and a second web page group (Paragraphs 0009, 0046, to collect statistics about placed ads, the ads must be placed); (S5) capturing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the plurality of web pages of the first and second web page groups within a predetermined time period (Paragraphs 0009, 0046, collecting click-through-rates for website categories); (S6) comparing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the web pages of the first web page group with those of the second web page group (Paragraph 0045, ads perform better on one site vs. another); and (S7) continuing to use the advertisement on the web pages of the web page group with the higher number of clicks and discontinuing its use on the web pages of the group with the lower number of clicks (Paragraph 0045, spend budget on categories of web sites that provide higher returns, thus lowering the budget, potentially to zero, on categories of web sites that do not perform as well).
Yuan does not appear to specify (S1) capturing at least a portion of the respective content of a plurality of web pages; (S2) transforming the captured content of the web pages to obtain a content description of each respective web page; (S3) and creating web page groups that contain web pages with content descriptions that are similar to each other to at least a predetermined degree. However, Meltzer teaches (S1) capturing at least a portion of the respective content of a plurality of web pages (Paragraphs 0023, analyze page content); (S2) transforming the captured content of the web pages to obtain a content description of each respective web page (Paragraphs 0023, 0028, using words and phrases to determine a page summary); (S3) and creating web page groups that contain web pages with content descriptions that are similar to each other to at least a predetermined degree (Paragraphs 0028, 0059, create classification scheme of similar websites based on the summaries). Meltzer further teaches each web page is assigned a vector from a predetermined vector space, in which linearly independent vectors represent web pages whose content descriptions are not similar to one another (Paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to group web sites according to content since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Yuan does not appear to specify steps (S4) to (S7) are performed at least pairwise for a plurality of web pages. However, A/B testing, also known as bucket testing, is an old and well known form of pairwise comparative analysis that has been around long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use A/B testing to compare web site groups since A/B testing is a powerful tool for comparing 2 values to determine which is more effective.
Regarding claims 13, 14, Yuan teaches (S4) placing the same advertisement on a plurality of web pages of a first web page group and a second web page group (Paragraphs 0009, 0046, to collect statistics about placed ads, the ads must be placed); (S5) capturing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the plurality of web pages of the first and second web page groups within a predetermined time period (Paragraphs 0009, 0046, collecting click-through-rates for website categories); (S6) comparing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the web pages of the first web page group with those of the second web page group (Paragraph 0045, ads perform better on one site vs. another); and (S7) continuing to use the advertisement on the web pages of the web page group with the higher number of clicks and discontinuing its use on the web pages of the group with the lower number of clicks (Paragraph 0045, spend budget on categories of web sites that provide higher returns, thus lowering the budget, potentially to zero, on categories of web sites that do not perform as well). Yuan further teaches (S8) instead of or in addition to continuing to use the advertisement on the web pages of the group with the higher number of clicks, placing an alternative advertisement on said web pages (Paragraph 0045, Yuan is capable of being used for numerous advertisements, should another advertisement be appropriate for a website category, the system of Yuan would suggest increasing an advertising budget so that the other ad would appear on the website).
Yuan does not appear to specify (S1) capturing at least a portion of the respective content of a plurality of web pages; (S2) transforming the captured content of the web pages to obtain a content description of each respective web page; (S3) and creating web page groups that contain web pages with content descriptions that are similar to each other to at least a predetermined degree. However, Meltzer teaches (S1) capturing at least a portion of the respective content of a plurality of web pages (Paragraphs 0023, analyze page content); (S2) transforming the captured content of the web pages to obtain a content description of each respective web page (Paragraphs 0023, 0028, using words and phrases to determine a page summary); (S3) and creating web page groups that contain web pages with content descriptions that are similar to each other to at least a predetermined degree (Paragraphs 0028, 0059, create classification scheme of similar websites based on the summaries). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to group web sites according to content since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Yuan does not appear to specify wherein the content description of the alternative advertisement is similar - to at least a predetermined degree - to the content description of the previously used advertisement. However, Meltzer teaches wherein the content description of a document is similar - to at least a predetermined degree - to the content description of the previously used document (Paragraph 0069, nothing prevents the same method used for website documents may be used for advertising documents). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine similarity between documents since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (U.S. Pub No. 2015/0213481) in view of Meltzer (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0093331), and further in view of Rosen (U.S. Pub No. 2022/0172247).
Regarding claim 3, Yuan does not appear to specify the transformation in step (S2) is carried out using a large language model. However, Rosen teaches the transformation in step (S2) is carried out using a large language model (Paragraphs 0006-0007, 0077-0081). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine a large language model with Yuan and Meltzer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Yuan does not appear to specify a large language model is used to transform the content of the alternative advertisement to obtain a content description. However, Rosen teaches a large language model is used to transform the content of the alternative document to obtain a content description (Paragraphs 0006-0007, 0077-0081). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine a large language model with Yuan and Meltzer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “the claims are directed to a specific technical data-processing architecture rather than to an abstract idea of advertising optimization. The core of the invention lies in a concrete vector space architecture in which linearly independent vectors are used to represent semantically dissimilar webpages. This architecture yields measurable technical effects, such as a drastic reduction in memory requirements (to roughly 5% of conventional systems) and a substantial increase in processing speed (GPU-based processing in seconds rather than CPU-based processing in hours). These improvements result from the specific technical data structure, not from a business concept. First of all, there are no vectors recited in claim 1, so any argument for a “vector space architecture” is moot. Further, the specification has no such support for any reduction in memory requirements or increase in processing speed. Therefore, there is no evidence that these alleged improvements were envisioned by Applicant at the time of the invention.
Applicant argues “in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., the Federal Circuit held that "our conclusion that the claims are directed to an improvement of an existing technology is bolstered by the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements." 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added). Moreover, the Federal Circuit noted that the improvement does not need to be defined by reference to "physical" components. Id. at 1339. Instead, the improvement here is defined by logical structures and processes, rather than particular physical features” and “Like in Enfish, the specification of the present application discloses that the claimed subject matter has similar benefits, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Thus, like the self-referential tables of Enfish, claim 1 of the present application, when read in light of the specification, discloses some of the same benefits, such as a reduction in memory requirements and increased processing speeds. As such, claim 1 is similarly directed to an improvement to computing technology and is, thus, not an abstract idea”. However, as quoted by Applicant, the key distinction is that in Enfish, the claims “directed to an improvement of an existing technology is bolstered by the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases”. The instant specification has no such support for any such improvements. Further, while physical hardware components are not required to be improved, any improvement must still be to the additional elements of the claimed invention, and not to the abstract idea. According to the instant specification, the improvements are merely to the effectiveness of advertising (See specification, page 1), which is only an improvement to the abstract idea. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. 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 there 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.
Applicant argues “any use of "transforming the captured content," "creating web page groups," and "capturing a number of clicks on the advertisement across the plurality of web pages of the first and second web page groups" in Applicant's claims is clearly integrated into the practical application of "placing an advertisement on a web page," which results in one or more measurable technical benefits as compared to currently understood methods “. However, as explained above, there is no practical application to placing an advertisement on a webpage, as this falls solely within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The only thing that can integrate an abstract idea into a practical application are the additional elements. In the instant claims, the additional elements are nothing more than general purpose computing elements, which are incapable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues “Meltzer neither teaches nor suggests grouping pages from different websites into virtual groups, such as "a first web page group and a second web page group," nor does it address comparative effectiveness testing across such groups, such as "comparing the number of clicks on the advertisement across the web pages of the first web page group with those of the second web page group". However, Paragraph 0028 of Metzler states “the entity subsequently may classify the site content, the page content, and other interesting features into respective content categories of a content database based on the site summary, the page summary, and the associated keywords” and Paragraph 0059 states “Page classifier 470 may be at least one of a hardware module and a software module configured to classify webpage 302 and its associated content information into respective categories of page content taxonomy 451 to increase the page representation for subsequent advertisement matching”. Therefore, web pages are indeed grouped together according to content. With regard to the step of comparing, Metzler was not used for that teaching, and therefore that argument is moot.
Applicant argues “The decisive technical distinction is therefore that Meltzer uses vectors for intra-site contextual interpretation of a single page, whereas the present invention uses vector similarity to form inter-site virtual page groups that act as statistical units for comparative effectiveness testing. These approaches are conceptually different and not readily combinable”. However, Applicant is making an argument for claim 1 about features that are not present in claim 1, such as vectors. Unclaimed features from the specification are not required to be read into the claim language. Therefore, this argument is moot.
Applicant argues “Yuan relies on predefined website categories (such as geographic regions, website categories, or time periods) and does not teach or suggest dynamic content-based grouping across websites. Even if Meltzer and Yuan were combined, the result would at most be a system combining predefined categories with intra-site term weighting, not a dynamic, category-independent formation of cross-site virtual groups based on content similarity for statistically valid A/B testing”. However, Applicant is making an argument for claim 1 about features that are not present in claim 1, such as A/B testing. Unclaimed features from the specification are not required to be read into the claim language. Further, Yuan was not used to teach content-based grouping across websites, which is what Metzler was used for. As explained above, Metzler teaches categorizing content of websites, which would group similar-category websites together. Therefore, the combination of Yuan and Metzler are still believed to teach the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights