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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 7, 14, 20, these claims recite the limitation “the unique hash value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim language. It is unclear whether this term is meant to be the same or different from the earlier recited “a unique index value. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are 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, 8, 15, the claims recite, in part, receiving a request for a first advertisement; determining one or more domain vectors, wherein the one or more domain vectors indicate a suitability of an advertisement; determining, from a plurality of advertisements, based on the one or more domain vectors, the first advertisement; and transmitting the first advertisement.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites determining and transmitting advertising based on domain vectors, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically 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 one or more processors (claims 8, 15) and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15). Claim 1 appears to contain no additional elements. 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 receiving, determining, and transmitting) 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 one or more processors (claims 8, 15) and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Claim 1 appears to contain no additional elements.
“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 paragraphs 0164-0172); 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 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 appear to merely limit suitability of an advertisement for a user, suitability of an advertisement for a content item, implementation of the invention for multiple users, implementation of the invention for multiple content items, foregoing transmission of advertisements for inappropriate content, and determining vectors based on semantic and non-semantic elements, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The one or more processors (claims 8, 15) and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of receiving, determining, and transmitting, all common to electronics and computer systems. Claim 1 appears to contain no additional elements.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the one or more processors (claims 8, 15) and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Claim 1 appears to contain no additional elements. 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 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Eldering (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0225046). Eldering teaches a system and method of ad targeting that includes all of the limitations recited in the above claims.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, Eldering teaches receiving a request for a first advertisement (Paragraph 0198, determines an opportunity for an ad is present and announces the opportunity to advertiser, announcement is a request for advertising); determining one or more domain vectors, wherein the one or more domain vectors indicate a suitability of an advertisement (Paragraphs 0172-0173, 0181, 0194, ad and consumer vectors represent “domain” vectors, correlation equates to suitability); determining, from a plurality of advertisements, based on the one or more domain vectors, the first advertisement (Paragraph 0257, determination of if an ad should be delivered to a subscriber represents determining a first advertisement); and transmitting the first advertisement (Paragraphs 0065, 0069, delivery of the advertisement).
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, Eldering teaches the first advertisement comprises a first advertisement for a user (Paragraph 0257); the one or more domain vectors are associated with the user (Paragraph 0194); and the suitability of the advertisement comprises a suitability of the advertisement for the user (Paragraph 0257).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, Eldering teaches the first advertisement comprises a first advertisement for a content item (Paragraph 0142); the one or more domain vectors are associated with the content item (Paragraphs 0112-0117); and the suitability of the advertisement comprises a suitability of the advertisement for the content item (Paragraphs 0074, 0086, 0112-0117, 0142).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Eldering teaches receiving a plurality of advertisement requests from a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of requests comprises the request for the first advertisement (Paragraph 0198, method can be used multiple times); determining one or more domain vectors associated with each of the users, wherein each of the one or more domain vectors indicates a suitability of a respective user of the plurality of users for the first advertisement (Paragraphs 0172-0173, 0181, 0194, method can be used multiple times); determining, based on the one or more domain vectors, a first user of the plurality of users (Paragraph 0257); and transmitting the first advertisement to the first user (Paragraphs 0065, 0069).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Eldering teaches receiving a plurality of advertisement requests from a plurality of content items, wherein the plurality of requests comprises the request for the first advertisement (Paragraph 0198, method can be used multiple times); determining one or more domain vectors associated with each of the content items, wherein each of the one or more domain vectors indicates a suitability of a respective content item for the first advertisement (Paragraphs 0074, 0086, 0112-0117, 0142, method can be used multiple times); and determining, based on the one or more domain vectors, a first content item of the plurality of content items (Paragraphs 0074, 0086, 0112-0117, 0142); wherein the first advertisement is associated with the first content item (Paragraph 0142).
Regarding claims 6, 13, Eldering teaches determining, based on the one or more domain vectors, that a content item comprises inappropriate content (Paragraph 0120); and forgoing transmitting an advertisement associated with the inappropriate content (Paragraphs 0123, 0257, advertisement that doesn’t match means the content is inappropriate for that demographic of ad).
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 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldering (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0225046) in view of Song (U.S. Pub No. 2024/0256840).
Regarding claims 7, 14, 20, Eldering does not appear to specify identifying a non-semantic element of the content item; determining a unique index value based on the non-semantic element of the content item; querying a database based on the unique index value; in response to a determination, based on said querying, that the unique index value exists in the database: receiving, from the database, a first semantic description of the non-semantic element of the content item, associating the first semantic description with the semantic element of the content item, and determining a first vector based on the content item; and in response to a determination, based on said querying, that the unique index value does not exist in the database: applying the non-semantic element of the content item as input to a generative AI model, receiving an output of the generative AI model, the output comprising a second semantic description of the non-semantic element of the content item, storing the second semantic description of the non-semantic element of the content item in the database, wherein the second semantic description is indexed in the database by the unique hash value, associating the second semantic description with the semantic element of the content item, and determining a second vector based on the content item.
However, Song teaches identifying a non-semantic element of the content item (Paragraph 0031); determining a unique index value based on the non-semantic element of the content item (Paragraph 0096); querying a database based on the unique index value (Paragraphs 0035-0036); in response to a determination, based on said querying, that the unique index value exists in the database: receiving, from the database, a first semantic description of the non-semantic element of the content item (Paragraphs 0035-0036), associating the first semantic description with the semantic element of the content item (Paragraph 0033), and determining a first vector based on the content item (Paragraph 0033); and in response to a determination, based on said querying, that the unique index value does not exist in the database: applying the non-semantic element of the content item as input to a generative AI model (Paragraph 0031), receiving an output of the generative AI model, the output comprising a second semantic description of the non-semantic element of the content item (Paragraph 0031), storing the second semantic description of the non-semantic element of the content item in the database, wherein the second semantic description is indexed in the database by the unique hash value (Paragraphs 0032, 0033, 0096, 0126), associating the second semantic description with the semantic element of the content item (Paragraph 0033), and determining a second vector based on the content item (Paragraph 0033). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine vectors according to the system of Song 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references have been cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semantic embedding indexes:
U.S. Patent No. 10,614,366 to Zhang
U.S. Pub No. 2020/0372047 to Wu
U.S. Pub No. 2024/0370479 to Hudetz
EP 1672537 to Armstrong
The following reference has been cited to further show the state of the art with respect to ad targeting using vectors:
U.S. Pub No. 2001/0049620 to Blasko
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