DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 27 April 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 17, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Applicant is reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.121 which includes “In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).” Claim 19 does not include any status identifier.
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/Remarks
The rejections of claims 11, 13, and 15 under 35 USC § 112(b) have not been remedied. Applicant indicates in Remarks at 6 that they have “amended claims 11, 13, and 15 to correct the antecedent basis” but these claims have not been amended. They remain rejected, as set out below.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC § 112(d) has been remedied by amendment and is withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong One that recited “features collectively define a machine-level improvement in how distributed ad systems process, compare, and select bids under real-time constraints, rather than merely organizing human activity.” Remarks at 8. Applicant has not successfully argued that that claims do not recite limitations that fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. The analysis asks if the claims recite an abstract idea. The claims do recite limitations that are considered advertising activities. For example, the claims recite receiving an ad request, asking for bids, and selecting an ad for display. Thus, the claims do indeed recite advertising activities and thus recite an abstract idea. Additional elements are analyzed in later steps. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong Two that “The Claimed Architecture Imposes Meaningful Technical Constraints.” Remarks at 8. Technical constraints is not an identified way of showing that the abstract idea is implemented into a practical application. Additionally, there is not support in the cited paragraphs demonstrating a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong Two that “Floor-Group-Bid Interference and Rule-Based Comparison Are Technological Improvements” and cites a number of paragraphs from the Specification including [0068], [0093], [0099],[0100], and [0102]. Remarks at 9. A technical solution to a technical problem is one way of showing that the abstract idea is implemented into a practical application. However, the cited paragraphs do not set forth a technical problem nor a technical solution. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong Two that the “Ordered Combination Produces a Practical Technological Result.” Remarks at 9. A technological result is not an identified way of showing that the abstract idea is implemented into a practical application. Additionally, there is not support in the cited paragraphs demonstrating a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Under Step 2B, Applicant cites a number of paragraphs from the Specification and argues similarly to the arguments presented under Step 2A Prong Two. Remarks at 10-11. However, none of the cited paragraphs demonstrate a technical solution to a technical problem or any showing that the claims provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the provisional statutory double patenting rejection, Examiner agrees with Applicant that the claims have been amended such that they are no longer “identical in scope” to claims in US application 19/406121. The provisional rejection is withdrawn.
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 11, 13, and 15 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.
Claim 11 recites “the parallel bid requests” in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the plurality of ad networks” in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “plurality of ad networks” is introduced in both claims 8 and 11, but claim 13 does not depend of either of these claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the backfill ad networks” in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “[B]ackfill ad networks” is introduced in claim 14, but claim 15 does not depend from this claim.
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 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.
Step 1
Claims 1-16 recite a system comprising a device including a processor and memory which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 17-20 are directed to a method which is considered a process.
Step 2A-Prong One
Claims 1 and 17 recite the concept of performing an ad auction to determine and select an advertisement for display (see “receive an ad request from the mobile device, wherein the ad request is for an ad placement; concurrently transmit bid requests to at least one mediation platform and to a plurality of header-bidding partners (HBPs); determine, in real time, a highest HBP bid from a plurality of bids received from the plurality of HBPs; query a selected mediation platform through a plurality of floor groups until an advertisement fill is returned; identify an approximate mediation bid range by determining which floor group produced the advertisement fill; cache an HBP ad object associated with the highest HBP bid and a mediation ad object returned by the selected mediation platform for the advertisement fill; determine a maximum bid by: deriving a value from the approximate mediation bid range; and comparing the highest HBP bid with the derived value based on a comparison rule; and select for display on the mobile device the advertisement associated with the maximum bid” in claim 1; similar limitations are found in claim 17). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including advertising activities. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 2, 3, and 18 further limit the abstract idea found in claims 1 and 17 by further defining how the floor groups are generated and adjusted (see “the plurality of floor groups is dynamically generated from effective cost-per-mille (eCPM) data, and wherein the SDK adjusts number and width of the plurality of floor groups according to historical eCPM distributions” in claim 18). These limitations do not take the claims out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 19 further limit the abstract idea found in claims 1 and 17 by utilizing an upper bound to terminate queries (see “the SDK terminates further mediation queries once the highest HBP bid exceeds an upper bound of the floor group that produced the advertisement fill” in claim 4). These limitations do not take the claims out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea found in claim 1 by recording information and using win rates to bypass partners (see “the SDK records bid outcomes and bypasses mediation partners with historically low win rates in subsequent ad requests”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 20 further limit the abstract idea found in claims 1 and 17 by further defining the comparison rule (see “the comparison rule is configured to compare the highest HBP bid with at least one of a lower bound, an upper bound, or a representative value derived from the approximate mediation bid range” in claim 6). These limitations do not take the claims out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea found in claim 1 by defining the maximum bid (see “the maximum bid is a winning bid amongst the plurality of bids from the plurality of header bidding partners and one or more mediation partners”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea found in claim 1 by performing additional transmissions of information (see “the concurrent bid requests are additionally transmitted to a plurality of ad networks separate from the plurality of header-bidding partners and the at least one mediation platform”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea found in claim 1 by retrieving additional information (see “retrieving ad placement details from a remote configuration, and wherein the ad placement details comprise a list of applicable ad partners and their supported ad types, configuration settings for at least one of series processing and parallel processing, and cache handling instructions”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea found in claim 1 by further defining where the caching occurs (see “caching comprises storing the HBP ad object and the mediation ad object in volatile memory for receiving the ad object”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea found in claim 1 by further defining that the requests occur simultaneously (see “the parallel bid requests are initiated simultaneously across the mediation platform, header bidding partners, and a plurality of ad networks”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 12 further limits the abstract idea found in claim 1 by determining if an ad is already cached (see “detecting a cache hit by determining whether the ad object associated with the maximum bid is already stored in the cache and, in response to the cache hit, retrieving and displaying the cached ad object”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea found in claim 1 by backfilling ad placements (see “utilizing the plurality of ad networks as backfill to fill the ad placement through waterfall architecture upon failure to receive bids from the plurality of header bidding partners and at least one mediation platform”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea found in claim 1 by further defining how backfilled ads are prioritized (see “prioritizing backfill ad networks based on predefined criteria, such as historical fill rates, ad performance, or revenue potential, to optimize ad selection when the plurality of header bidding partners and mediation platform fail to provide an ad or a winning bid or an ad with a bid higher than a threshold ad bid decided by a client”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 15 further limits the abstract idea found in claim 1 by further defining how backfilled ads are prioritized (see “the backfill ad networks are prioritized according to predefined criteria that include at least one of historical fill rate, ad performance, or revenue potential”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 16 further limits the abstract idea found in claim 1 by further using a model to make predictions (see “the SDK employs a machine-learning model to predict floor-group thresholds prior to querying the mediation platform”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the above-identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a system comprising a mobile device having a memory and a processor running a software application; and a Software Development Kit (SDK) integrated with the software application, the SDK being stored in the memory and executed by the processor, the SDK being communicatively coupled to a publisher server (found in claims 1-15) or a SDK (found in claims 17-20) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The system or SDK does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
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 MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights