DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 1, 2026, cancelled claims 2, 7, and 16. Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 17, and 21 were amended and new claims 22-24 were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-24.
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, 3-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-24 are directed to a method, an apparatus, and a computer program product which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 15, and 21 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner note: The server has been included as part of the abstract idea because the server is outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and, as such, the server cannot be considered an “additional element” of the claimed invention.)
receiving, from a server, a plurality of suppression strategies, wherein each of the plurality of suppression strategies comprises information in different dimensions;
generating a first advertising request comprising at least one piece of first parameter information;
determining, based on a suppression strategy, whether the first advertising request is suppressed;
determining, by comparing the at least one piece of first parameter information against the information in different dimensions comprised in each of the plurality of suppression strategies, a target suppression strategy corresponding to the first advertising request;
determining, based on the target suppression strategy, whether the first advertising request is suppressed;
when the first advertising request is suppressed:
obtaining first advertising content locally based on the first advertising request; or obtaining first advertising information locally based on the first advertising request, and obtaining first advertising content based on the first advertising information; and
displaying the first advertising content; and
when the first advertising request is not suppressed:
sending the first advertising request to a server, and
obtaining an advertising response from the server, wherein the advertising response comprises at least second advertising information; and
displaying, based on the advertising response, second advertising content corresponding to the second advertising information.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a device with at least one processor and a memory executing software instructions (e.g., one or more applications with integrated software development kits (SDKs) which is merely a general-purpose computer with generic computer upon which the abstract idea is merely being applied.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, from a server, a plurality of suppression strategies, wherein each of the plurality of suppression strategies comprises information in different dimensions (receiving data);
when the first advertising request is suppressed:
obtaining first advertising content locally based on the first advertising request; or obtaining first advertising information locally based on the first advertising request, and obtaining first advertising content based on the first advertising information (receiving data); and
displaying the first advertising content (displaying data); and
when the first advertising request is not suppressed:
sending the first advertising request to a server (transmitting data), and
obtaining an advertising response from the server, wherein the advertising response comprises at least second advertising information (receiving data); and
displaying, based on the advertising response, second advertising content corresponding to the second advertising information (displaying data).
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 processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on 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 a device with at least one processor and a memory executing software instructions (e.g., one or more applications with integrated software development kits (SDKs) 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 (as evidenced from paragraphs 3-4. 88-92, 170, 312-315, and 317-318, as well as, figure 2 and figure 5 of the applicant’s disclosure); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, from a server, a plurality of suppression strategies, wherein each of the plurality of suppression strategies comprises information in different dimensions (receiving data);
when the first advertising request is suppressed:
obtaining first advertising content locally based on the first advertising request; or obtaining first advertising information locally based on the first advertising request, and obtaining first advertising content based on the first advertising information (receiving data); and
displaying the first advertising content (displaying data); and
when the first advertising request is not suppressed:
sending the first advertising request to a server (transmitting data), and
obtaining an advertising response from the server, wherein the advertising response comprises at least second advertising information (receiving data); and
displaying, based on the advertising response, second advertising content corresponding to the second advertising information (displaying data)..
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 3-6, 8-14, 17-19, and 22-24 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by introduce the new additional elements of a device (e.g., a general-purpose computer) with one or more applications with integrated SDKs (e.g., software) which have already been addressed above, further limiting the generating of the first advertising request, and further limiting the determining of whether the first advertising request is suppressed both of which are considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 3, 17 and 22); further limiting the obtaining of the first advertising content based on the first advertising request when the first advertising request is suppressed which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 4, 18, and 23); further limiting the sending of the first advertising request to the server and the obtaining of the advertising response from the server, when the first advertising request is not suppressed which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 5, 19, and 24); further limiting the first advertising information and the second advertising information which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 6); further limiting the obtaining of the plurality of suppression strategies which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 8); further limiting the target suppression strategy and the determining of whether the first advertising request is suppressed, as well as, adding an additional step of suppressing a second advertising request, all of which are considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 9); further limiting the obtaining of the first advertising content locally based on the first advertising request which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 10); further limiting the advertising response, the at least one piece of advertising information, and adding an additional step of displaying the second advertising content, all of which are considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 11); further limiting the advertising response, and adding the additional steps of obtaining second advertising content and second parameter information, obtaining third advertising content and third parameter information, storing the second advertising content, the second parameter information, the third advertising content, and the third parameter information, as well as obtaining third advertising content, all of which are considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 12); further limiting the first parameter and/or the second parameter which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 13-14), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-24 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed on July 1, 2026, has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claim 7 detailed in the Office Action dated April 9, 2026, by cancelling claim 7. Thus, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
5. The amendment filed on July 1, 2026, has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 12 detailed in the Office Action dated April 9, 2026. Thus, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per the “Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications” issued on January 21, 2011 and MPEP 2161.01, the first paragraph of § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. The written description requirement of § 112, ¶ 1 applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function.
Independent claims 1, 15, and 21, as currently amended require “receiving, from a server, a plurality of suppression strategies, wherein each of the plurality of suppression strategies comprises information in different dimensions”; “generating a first advertising request comprising at least one piece of first parameter information; determining, by comparing the at least one piece of first parameter information against the information in different dimensions comprised in each of the plurality of suppression strategies, a target suppression strategy corresponding to the first advertising request”; and “determine, based on the target suppression strategy, whether the first advertising request is suppressed”. As currently claimed the different dimensions are broad enough to encompass a genus of dimensions including any and/or all possible different dimensions. Likewise, the at least one piece of first parameter information is broad enough to encompass a genus of at least one piece of first parameter information including any and/or all possible pieces of parameter information. Next, there is no required nexus between the different dimensions and the parameter. Instead, as currently claimed, the comparing of the at least one piece of first parameter information against the information in different dimension is broad enough to encompass any and/or all possible ways of comparing. Finally, the computer/terminal/user device is able to determine, based on the target suppression strategy, whether the first advertising request is suppressed. This encompass a genus of making such a determination whether the first advertising request is suppress in any and/or all possible ways based of the target suppression strategy. The applicant’s specification does not describe the invention in sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor or joint-inventor had possession of such a broad genus of invention.
These limitations are functional limitations describing a genus embodiment of the computer/terminal/user device obtaining suppression strategies from the server and determining a target suppression strategy corresponding to a generated first advertising request. The examiner has reviewed the applicant’s specification and has found only a single species of the computer/terminal/user device obtaining suppression strategies from the server and determining a target suppression strategy corresponding to a generated first advertising request. According to the applicant’s specification, in paragraphs 138-152 and 159-168, the server pre-configures suppression strategies based on previously received advertising information in different dimensions, wherein the information in different dimensions includes two or more of an advertising slot, an advertising type, an advertising form, an advertising floor price, a request number (number), a time window (time window), scenario information, or terminal device information. The suppression strategy may also include a suppression condition/trigger and a suppression method. The computer/terminal/user device determines the parameter information in different dimensions that is carried in the advertising request, wherein the parameter information in different dimensions include two or more of a requested advertising slot, a requested advertising type, a requested advertising form, a requested advertising floor price, a requested request number (number), a requested time window (time window), requested scenario information, or requested terminal device information. The computer/terminal/user device compares, piece by piece, the parameter information of the request with the information in different dimensions carried in the plurality of suppression strategies to determine a match between the parameter information in the different dimensions carried in the advertising request and the information in different dimensions carried in one suppression strategy of the plurality of suppression strategies. The computer/terminal/user device uses the matching one suppression strategy as a target suppression strategy. The computer/terminal/user device then determines whether the advertising request meets a trigger condition of the target suppression strategy. If the advertising request meets the trigger condition, the advertising request is suppressed according to a suppression method in the target suppression strategy. If the advertising request does not meet the trigger conditions, the terminal determines that the advertising request does not trigger request suppression.
Thus, the only species of performing such steps supported by the applicant’s specification is:
a computer/terminal/user device performing the steps of:
receiving, from a server, a plurality of suppression strategies, wherein each of the plurality of suppression strategies comprises advertising information in different dimensions, a trigger condition, and a suppression method, wherein the advertising information in different dimensions includes at least two of two or more of an advertising slot, an advertising type, an advertising form, an advertising floor price, a request number (number), a time window (time window), scenario information, or the computer/terminal/user device information” (The examiner notes that the information in different dimensions is plural. Thus, more than one possible dimension must be in each of the plurality of suppression strategies. This results in two or more of an advertising slot, an advertising type, an advertising form, an advertising floor price, a request number (number), a time window (time window), scenario information, or terminal device information being required by the claim)
generating a first advertising request comprising parameter information in the different dimensions associated with the first advertising request, wherein the parameter information in different dimensions includes at least two of two or more of a requested advertising slot, a requested advertising type, a requested advertising form, a requested advertising floor price, a requested request number (number), a requested time window (time window), requested scenario information, or the computer/terminal/user device information; (The examiner notes that since a match between the parameter information and the advertising information in different dimensions must be made, the generated a first advertising request must also have more than a single parameter. The applicants disclosure does not have support for performing a match between a single piece of parameter information and advertising information in different dimensions. As such, tenses between the parameter information and advertising information must match.)
determining the parameter information in the different dimensions that is carried in the first advertising request;
comparing, piece by piece, parameter information with the advertising information in different dimensions in each of the plurality of suppression strategies;
determining, based on the comparing, a suppression strategy of the plurality of suppression strategies that match the parameter information and using it as a target suppression strategy; and
determining, based on the trigger condition of the target suppression strategy, whether the first advertising request meets the trigger condition;
when the first advertising request meets the trigger condition:
suppressing the first advertising request according to the suppression method of the target suppression strategy;
searching at least one piece of locally stored advertising content for a first advertising content with second parameter information in different dimensions that matches the parameter information in different dimensions of the first advertising request;
determining, based on the searching, the first advertising content corresponds to the first advertising request; and
displaying the first advertising content;
when the first advertising request does not meet the trigger condition:
sending the first advertising request to the server;
receiving, from the server, an advertising response comprising at least a second advertising content; and
displaying the second advertising content.
As can be seen above, the only species of performing the claimed steps that can be found in the applicant’s specification is much narrower than the genus of steps being claimed. The disclosure of a single species of an invention is insufficient to prove that the applicant invented the genus being claimed. The test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. A description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement, Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. The written description requirement of § 112, ¶ 1 applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language, but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus. The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Computer-implemented inventions are often disclosed and claimed in terms of their functionality. This is because writing computer programming code for software to perform specific functions is normally within the skill of the art once those functions have been adequately disclosed. Nevertheless, for computer-implemented inventions, the determination of the sufficiency of disclosure will require an inquiry into both the sufficiency of the disclosed hardware as well as the disclosed software due to the interrelationship and interdependence of computer hardware and software. When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. Specifically, if one skilled in the art would know how to program the disclosed computer to perform the necessary steps described in the specification to achieve the claimed function and the inventor was in possession of that knowledge, the written description requirement would be satisfied. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under § 112, ¶ 1 for lack of written description must be made. In the instant case, the claimed invention fails to satisfy the written description requirement because the claims is a genus of invention described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function because genus claims use functional language to define the boundaries of the claimed genus. The claims simply claim a desired result, and do so without describing species that achieve that result. There is no indication in the specification that demonstrates that the applicant invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus. There is no disclosure in the applicant’s specification of the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. The examiner has neither been unable to find support for the claimed genus. Instead, only a single species of the claimed genus is supported by the applicant’s specification. Said single species is insufficient to prove to one of ordinary skill in the art to program the disclosed computer to perform the necessary steps described in the functionally-defined genus or that the inventor was in possession of that knowledge. There are no specific examples of how the claimed genus described using functional language would be used to obtain the desired result given a single species. There are no algorithms or flow charts that describe the specific details necessary for implementation of the genus claimed using a single species of the claimed genus. Hence, it is clear that the specification fails to satisfy the written description because it does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed functions. An adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than the generic statement of the inventions boundaries as presented in the independent claims 1, 15, and 21. As such, claims 1, 15, and 21 are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 3-6, 8-14, 17-19, and 20-24 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-24 contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 101 rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner has found prior art (see Morten et. al.: 2018/0181969; Paranjpe et. al.: 2022/0148039; and AO: 20170187837) that discloses: a method, an apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions at least one processor; and one or more processors memories coupled to the memory at least one processor and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to perform the steps of:
generating a first advertising request;
determining, based on a suppression strategy, whether the first advertising request is suppressed;
when the first advertising request is suppressed:
obtaining first advertising content locally based on the first advertising request; or obtaining first advertising information locally based on the first advertising request, and obtaining first advertising content based on the first advertising information, the first advertising information comprises a download address of the first advertising content;
when the first advertising request is not suppressed:
sending the first advertising request to a server;
obtaining an advertising response from the server, wherein the advertising response comprises at least second advertising information; and
displaying, based on the advertising response, second advertising content corresponding to the second advertising information.
However, the suppression strategy performed by the user terminal in Morten is based on the current status of a network connection or a marker or other identifier within an advertising slot that indicate that a locally stored advertisement is to be used.
As such, Morten, Paranjpe, and AO do not disclose that the server provides the terminal with a plurality of pre-configured suppression strategies, wherein each of the plurality of suppression strategies comprise advertisement information associated with different dimensions of advertising parameters; and then determining based on the parameters of a first advertisement request and the pre-configured suppression strategy whether or not to suppress the first advertising request.
The examiner has also found prior art that discloses a server, mobile access gateway, and/or website publisher determining whether or not to suppress an advertising response based on advertisement suppression strategies (see at least such Biere et al.: 8,249,918), as well as prior art which discloses a user of a user device creating an advertisement suppression strategy, and the client device executing the suppression strategy (see at least Fitzgerald et al.: 2010/0138294)
However, the examiner has been unable to find prior art that would be obvious to combine with Morten, Paranjpe, and AO which discloses a server generating a plurality of advertisement suppression strategies and providing them to the client device, wherein the client device obtains the parameters of an advertisement request it generates and matches these parameters with the parameters of one of the advertisement suppression strategies to determine whether or not to suppress the sending of the advertisement request to the server.
As such, claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-24 contains subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 101 rejections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because they do not recite a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because instead of reciting advertising marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Instead, the claims are reciting a technical process for network traffic routing, internal client memory parsing, and endpoint interface throttling. The examiner strongly disagrees. The entire purpose of the claims is to determine whether or not to display first advertising content which is locally store, or to request advertising content from a server and then display the advertising content received from the server. Thus, the claims clearly recite advertising marketing and sales activities or behaviors. The claims do not require that any type of network traffic routing occur. In fact, when the first advertising request is suppressed, there is no network traffic routing, and the only type of network routing that occurs when it is not suppressed is the transmitting of a request to a server, and receiving a request from the server, both of which are merely transmitting and/or receiving data. The claims do not require any type of client memory parsing. Instead, the claims merely require the generating of an advertising request comprising a parameter and comparing the parameter to parameters in the plurality of suppression strategies, neither of which requires any type of parsing much less memory parsing. Finally, the claims do not require any type of endpoint interface throttling because they neither recite an interface nor any type of throttling. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing, and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 101 rejections under Step 2a, Prong 2 because they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology by reciting a technical solution to the technical problem of network bandwidth exhaustion and backend server overloading. The examiner strongly disagrees. First, the claims do not improve network bandwidth. The amount of network bandwidth remains the same irrespective of whether or not the invention is employed. The invention itself does not change or improve network bandwidth in any way. While it is true that not sending data to a server, results in less data be transmitted over the network, and that sending data to a server results in more data being transmitted over the network, the decision of whether or not to send the data cannot, in any way, be considered an improvement to a technology or technological field. Instead, it is an intended result of performing the abstract idea. As such, any purported improvement that is obtained is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself, which is an improvement to an abstract idea and therefore, an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”; and the SAP v Investpic decision - Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.) The applicants claim do not perform any type of check with regard to the current network bandwidth usage or require that the suppression strategy be based on such current network bandwidth usage. As such, the claims do not recite a technical solution to the technical problem of network bandwidth exhaustion. Likewise, the claims to not recite a technical solution to the technical problem of network bandwidth exhaustion and backend server overloading. The applicant’s claims have no idea what type of processing is currently being performed by the backend server, perform no check to determine if it is currently overloaded or close to being overloaded, and do not use any such information when determining whether or not to suppress the advertising request. Any purported improvement in backend server overloading is an intended result that occurs when the abstract idea recited in the claims determines to suppress sending an advertising request to the server. Thus, this is an improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. Making a determination not to send an advertising request is not a technical solution to a technical problem of backend server overloading. In fact, the claim requires either sending a single advertising request or not sending a single advertising request. In either case, this single request will be negligible with regard to the workload on the backend server. As such, it is clear that the claims do not recite a technical solution to the technical problem of backend server overloading. Finally, the claims merely recite applying an abstract using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components. As such, any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to the abstract idea itself and not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”). Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing, and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 101 rejections under Step 2b because it recites one or more additional elements which are not well understood routine, and conventional by performing advertising requests according to a suppression strategy. The examiner disagrees. The applicant appears to misconstrue what an “additional element” is with respected to the 101 analysis required by MPEP 2106. An “additional element” as defined as those elements of a claim which are not part of the abstract idea itself. The only “additional elements” in the claims are a device with at least one processor and a memory executing software instructions (e.g., one or more applications with integrated software development kits (SDKs) which is merely a general-purpose computer with generic computer components upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied. The filter the applicant references (e.g., the determining a target suppression strategy by comparing…, and determining based on the target suppression strategy whether the first advertising request is suppressed) is part of the abstract idea itself. As such, it cannot be considered an additional element of the claims. Whether or not the abstract idea recites steps that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional is not a consideration under Step 2b. Under Step 2b, it is the “additional elements” of the claim that may be considered “significantly more” is they are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. As made clear in MPEP 2106 and the SAP decision (as cited above) the claimed steps of the abstract idea may be groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, but they are not improvements in technology. Instead, their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they recite an improvement to an abstract idea. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing, and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102/103 rejections are moot as the claim amendment has overcome the prior art as indicated above.
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 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 JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights