Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 9/15/2026, and is a Final Office Action.
Claims 1-22 are pending in the application.
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 1-22 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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a method of organizing human activity – commercial interaction and fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: receiving, input data from a television (TV) publisher, the input data including: data representing available TV ad inventory; and pricing data associated with the available TV ad inventory; (B) receiving, input data from an advertiser, the input data including: performance estimates for advertising campaigns, each of the performance estimates being associated with a respective time segment of a plurality of time segments of the available TV and inventory and comprising a predicted performance metric or a lift estimate; Cost Per Outcome (CPO) goals; campaign requirements; flight dates; and placement parameters; (C) optimizing, placement of the advertising campaigns within the available TV ad inventory based on the input data from the TV publisher and the input data from the advertiser, that simultaneously balances objectives of maximizing revenue for the TV publisher and minimizing deviations from the CPO goals of the advertiser; the optimizing comprises: calculating, for each time segment of the plurality of time segments, a respective unit rate by multiplying a CPO goal of the CPO goals by the performance estimate associated with the time segment; collecting, by the computer system, ongoing performance data of live ones of the advertising campaigns; adjusting the calculated unit rates based on the ongoing performance data; and updating the placement of the advertising campaigns based on the dynamically adjusted unit rates; wherein the CPO goals and the performance estimates are stored in at least one first data structure that is separate from at least one second data structure storing the input data from the TV publisher, the computer system comprises a publisher-facing component through which the input data from the TV publisher is received, the publisher-facing component is configured with access permissions that prevent retrieval or display of the CPO goals and the performance estimates, and accesses the input data from the advertiser and the input data from the TV publisher without a shared data repository that would expose the CPO goals or the performance estimates to the publisher-facing component. Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “These limitations highlight the need for an improved approach to managing and selling remnant linear TV inventory to improve the process from the perspective of both buyer and seller.”, “provide a computer-implemented system and method for optimizing television advertising inventory that addresses the limitations of traditional TV ad placement approaches. The system operates as a neutral platform that simultaneously serves the interests of both TV publishers and advertisers, using optimization algorithms to maximize revenue for publishers while achieving cost-effective ad placements for advertisers. Unlike conventional supply-side platforms or demand-side platforms that favor one party over another, embodiments of the system maintain impartiality by keeping sensitive data confidential while leveraging information from both sides to optimize outcomes.”, “In some embodiments, a computer-implemented method for optimizing television advertising inventory may include receiving input data from a TV publisher, where the input data includes data representing available TV ad inventory and pricing data associated with the available TV ad inventory. The method may also include receiving input data from an advertiser, where the input data includes performance estimates for advertising campaigns, Cost Per Outcome goals, campaign requirements, flight dates, and placement parameters. The method may further include optimizing placement of the advertising campaigns within the available TV ad inventory based on the input data from the TV publisher and the input data from the advertiser, using a neutral optimization engine that simultaneously balances objectives of maximizing revenue for the TV publisher and minimizing deviations from the CPO goals of the advertiser.”, “The system 100 also includes an advertiser 114, which refers to any entity or entities that seeks to purchase advertisements. The advertiser 114 may include individual advertisers, groups of advertisers, advertising agencies, media buying agencies, programmatic advertising platforms, demand-side platforms (DSPs), brand management companies, marketing consultancies, advertising technology companies, or any intermediary entity acting on behalf of one or more advertisers. The advertiser 114 may encompass one or more non-profit organizations, government entities, political campaigns, educational institutions, or any other entity seeking to communicate messages through television advertising. The advertiser 114 may operate through various business models, including direct advertising, affiliate marketing, performance-based advertising, or any hybrid arrangement. The advertiser 114 may represent a single brand, multiple brands under common ownership, or a portfolio of unrelated brands managed by a common entity. The advertiser 114 may operate at local, regional, national, or international levels, and may range from small businesses to large multinational corporations. The advertiser 114 may engage with the system 100 on a one-time basis, recurring basis, or through ongoing relationships of varying duration. The advertiser 114 may interface with the system 100 directly or through various technological intermediaries, APIs, or integrated software platforms that facilitate advertising campaign management.”. , “The CPO goal helps advertisers manage their advertising budgets more effectively by setting a clear cost threshold for each outcome. This ensures that the advertising spend is directly tied to measurable results, enhancing financial accountability and efficiency. By providing a CPO goal, advertisers enable the optimization engine 126 to focus on securing ad slots that are not only likely to perform well but are also cost-effective. This strategic alignment helps in maximizing the impact of each ad dollar spent.[0047] The system 100 ensures that the advertiser 114’s CPO and performance estimates are not shared with the TV publisher 102. Keeping the CPO confidential prevents any potential manipulation of prices by TV publishers. If publishers were aware of the maximum cost advertisers are willing to pay per outcome, they might set their prices close to this threshold, which could lead to inflated advertising costs. Furthermore, advertisers’ strategies and financial thresholds are sensitive information. Protecting this data helps maintain the advertisers' competitive advantage and prevents any misuse of the information. By withholding specific performance goals and cost metrics from publishers, the system 100 promotes a fairer and more competitive marketplace. Publishers set their prices based on market dynamics and the intrinsic value of their inventory, rather than the advertisers’ budget constraints.” Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – I.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: receiving, input data from a television (TV) publisher, the input data including: data representing available TV ad inventory; and pricing data associated with the available TV ad inventory; (B) receiving, input data from an advertiser, the input data including: performance estimates for advertising campaigns; Cost Per Outcome (CPO) goals; campaign requirements; flight dates; and placement parameters; (C) optimizing, placement of the advertising campaigns within the available TV ad inventory based on the input data from the TV publisher and the input data from the advertiser, that simultaneously balances objectives of maximizing revenue for the TV publisher and minimizing deviations from the CPO goals of the advertiser. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind (including using pen/paper) but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mathematical concept, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: calculating, for each time segment of the plurality of time segments, a respective unit rate by multiplying a CPO goal of the CPO goals by the performance estimate associated with the time segment.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computer processor / computer readable medium /engine / system comprising a publisher facing component/ neutral optimization engine, which represent generic computing elements. The additional element of processing data in real-time/dynamically does no more than link or apply the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/ field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional element of processing data in real-time/dynamically does no more than link or apply the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/ field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 is directed to a system for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; it recites the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claim 14 performs the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-13, 15-22 further recite and narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The claims further recite the additional elements of processing data in real time / analyzing data using a machine learning algorithm. Analyzing data using machine learning does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Processing data in real time does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of
claims 1-22. Stukenborg (20100017298) teaches advertising inventory allocation, including: identifying, by a data processing device, advertisement spots for allocation, wherein two or more contiguous advertisement spots define an advertisement block receiving, by a data processing device, bid criteria from bidders; allocating, by a data processing device, advertisement spots to first bidders based on a per-spot price; de-allocating, by a data processing device, the allocated advertisement spots in an advertisement block that includes an advertisement spot that was not allocated based on the per-spot price; and re-allocating, by a data processing device, the advertisement spots in the advertisement block to the first bidders based on a per-bid price. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not
suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or
otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would
require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be
obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 42 (Method for Transmission of Notifications When Medical Records Are Updated) is instructive: claim 1 was found to recite a method of organizing human activity, yet was held eligible at Prong Two because the additional elements recited "a specific improvement over prior art systems." Claims 1 and 14 as amended present an analogous situation: even assuming the claims recite an abstract advertising objective, the additional elements specify a concrete computer architecture that integrates that objective into a practical application.
The Office Action identified the additional elements of claims 1 and 14 as only "a computer processor / computer readable medium / engine / system" and characterized them as generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality. Office Action, page 4. Claims 1 and 14 as amended, however, recite a particular technical architecture that goes well beyond generic computing elements. Specifically, claims 1 and 14 now recite that "the CPO goals and the performance estimates are stored in at least one first data structure that is separate from at least one second data structure storing the input data from the TV publisher, the computer system comprises a publisher-facing component through which the input data from the TV publisher is received, the publisher-facing component is configured with access permissions that prevent retrieval or display of the CPO goals and the performance estimates, and the neutral optimization engine accesses the input data from the advertiser and the input data from the TV publisher without a shared data repository that would expose the CPO goals or the performance estimates to the publisher- facing component." This recited architecture is not a generic computer; it is a specific arrangement of segregated data structures, an access- controlled publisher-facing component, and an optimization engine that operates on both data sets without a shared repository that would expose the CPO goals or performance estimates to the publisher- facing component. The Specification explains the technical problem this architecture solves: "[i]f publishers were aware of the maximum cost advertisers are willing to pay per outcome, they might set their prices close to this threshold, which could lead to inflated advertising costs." Specification, paragraph [0047]. The Specification further describes the technical solution: "advertiser data and publisher data are stored in separate, isolated databases or data structures," the "optimization engine 126 may access both data sets independently without creating any shared data repositories that could expose sensitive advertiser information to publishers," and "[p]ublisher interfaces may be configured with access permissions that prevent retrieval or display of advertiser CPO data and performance estimates." Specification, paragraph [0048]. The Specification also expressly characterizes this as an improvement to computer-based systems: the system implements "novel data processing architectures that improve upon conventional advertising platforms by creating a neutral optimization framework that processes confidential data from multiple parties without exposing sensitive information between them," requiring "specialized data segregation techniques, encrypted processing methods, and secure computation algorithms that represent improvements over existing computer-based advertising systems." Specification, paragraph [0230]. The claims as amended recite this particular technical solution, not merely the idea of keeping data confidential. The August 4, 2025 memorandum from Deputy Commissioner Charles Kim reminds examiners that "[a]n important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome." USPTO Memo, page 5. Claims 1 and 14 as amended satisfy this consideration: they recite the particular way the system achieves confidentiality, namely segregated data structures, access permissions on the publisher- facing component, and optimization without a shared repository, rather than the abstract idea of confidentiality itself. The same memorandum cautions examiners "not to oversimplify claim limitations and expand the application of the 'apply it' consideration." Id. Characterizing the recited data-structure segregation, access-permission configuration, and optimization without a shared repository that would expose the CPO goals or performance estimates to the publisher-facing component as merely "applying" an abstract idea on a generic computer would be precisely the oversimplification the memorandum warns against. The memorandum further instructs that "the additional limitations should not be evaluated in a vacuum, completely separate from the recited judicial exception. Instead, the analysis should take into consideration all the claim limitations and how these limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application." Id., page 4. When the claims are analyzed as a whole, the recited architecture meaningfully limits any abstract idea by specifying how the neutral optimization engine can simultaneously balance publisher revenue and advertiser CPO goals while structurally preventing the publisher-facing component from accessing the advertiser's sensitive data. Claims 1 and 14 as amended also recite "calculating, for each time segment of the plurality of time segments, a respective unit rate by multiplying a CPO goal of the CPO goals by the performance estimate associated with the time segment; collecting, by the computer system, ongoing performance data of live ones of the advertising campaigns; dynamically adjusting the calculated unit rates in real time based on the ongoing performance data; and updating the placement of the advertising campaigns based on the dynamically adjusted unit rates." These limitations describe a real- time feedback loop that collects live campaign data, recalculates segment-specific unit rates, and updates placements accordingly. This is not an observation, evaluation, or judgment that can practically be performed in the human mind. The August 4, 2025 memorandum reminds examiners that "[t]he mental process grouping is not without limits" and that examiners should "not expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." Id., page 2. Dynamically adjusting calculated unit rates in real time based on ongoing performance data of live campaigns and updating placements accordingly falls outside the mental-process grouping. In the alternative, even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea at Step 2A, they recite significantly more at Step 2B. The Office Action made no finding, supported by evidence, that the recited architecture of segregated data structures, access- controlled publisher-facing components, and optimization without a shared repository that would expose the CPO goals or performance estimates to the publisher-facing component is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Absent such a finding, the claims cannot be held ineligible at Step 2B. The August 4, 2025 memorandum reminds examiners that "if it is a 'close call' as to whether a claim is eligible, they should only make a rejection when it is more likely than not (i.e., more than 50%) that the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101." Id., page 5. Given the particular technical architecture now recited by claims 1 and 14, ineligibility is not more likely than not. New claims 21 and 22 further recite that the neutral optimization engine processes the input data from the advertiser using at least one abstraction layer that does not expose the CPO goals or the performance estimates to the publisher-facing component, and that the optimizing comprises generating an optimization output that specifies the placement and the calculated unit rates without revealing the CPO goals or the performance estimates that influenced the placement. This limitation adds an output-side technical constraint on how the optimization engine operates, going beyond storage location and access permissions to specify that the optimization output itself does not reveal the protected values. Support for this limitation is found in the Specification, which discloses that the optimization engine "may utilize abstraction layers that process advertiser data internally without exposing the underlying values to publisher-facing components" and "may generate optimization results and recommendations without revealing the specific CPO targets or performance metrics that influenced those decisions." Specification, paragraph [0050]. New claims 21 and 22 are patent eligible for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 14, and additionally because the abstraction-layer and non-revealing-output limitations further integrate any judicial exception into a practical application. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that claims 1 and 14 as amended are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 2-13 and 21 depend from claim 1, and claims 15-20 and 22 depend from claim 14; they are eligible for at least the same reasons. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
The pending 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained by the Examiner , as noted above; Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive. When performing the 35 USC 101 analysis, the Examiner has followed the current MPEP guidance as well as considered the Kim Memorandum.
The pending instant claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above.
Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the pending claims as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “These limitations highlight the need for an improved approach to managing and selling remnant linear TV inventory to improve the process from the perspective of both buyer and seller.”, “provide a computer-implemented system and method for optimizing television advertising inventory that addresses the limitations of traditional TV ad placement approaches. The system operates as a neutral platform that simultaneously serves the interests of both TV publishers and advertisers, using optimization algorithms to maximize revenue for publishers while achieving cost-effective ad placements for advertisers. Unlike conventional supply-side platforms or demand-side platforms that favor one party over another, embodiments of the system maintain impartiality by keeping sensitive data confidential while leveraging information from both sides to optimize outcomes.”, “In some embodiments, a computer-implemented method for optimizing television advertising inventory may include receiving input data from a TV publisher, where the input data includes data representing available TV ad inventory and pricing data associated with the available TV ad inventory. The method may also include receiving input data from an advertiser, where the input data includes performance estimates for advertising campaigns, Cost Per Outcome goals, campaign requirements, flight dates, and placement parameters. The method may further include optimizing placement of the advertising campaigns within the available TV ad inventory based on the input data from the TV publisher and the input data from the advertiser, using a neutral optimization engine that simultaneously balances objectives of maximizing revenue for the TV publisher and minimizing deviations from the CPO goals of the advertiser.”, “The system 100 also includes an advertiser 114, which refers to any entity or entities that seeks to purchase advertisements. The advertiser 114 may include individual advertisers, groups of advertisers, advertising agencies, media buying agencies, programmatic advertising platforms, demand-side platforms (DSPs), brand management companies, marketing consultancies, advertising technology companies, or any intermediary entity acting on behalf of one or more advertisers. The advertiser 114 may encompass one or more non-profit organizations, government entities, political campaigns, educational institutions, or any other entity seeking to communicate messages through television advertising. The advertiser 114 may operate through various business models, including direct advertising, affiliate marketing, performance-based advertising, or any hybrid arrangement. The advertiser 114 may represent a single brand, multiple brands under common ownership, or a portfolio of unrelated brands managed by a common entity. The advertiser 114 may operate at local, regional, national, or international levels, and may range from small businesses to large multinational corporations. The advertiser 114 may engage with the system 100 on a one-time basis, recurring basis, or through ongoing relationships of varying duration. The advertiser 114 may interface with the system 100 directly or through various technological intermediaries, APIs, or integrated software platforms that facilitate advertising campaign management.”. , “The CPO goal helps advertisers manage their advertising budgets more effectively by setting a clear cost threshold for each outcome. This ensures that the advertising spend is directly tied to measurable results, enhancing financial accountability and efficiency. By providing a CPO goal, advertisers enable the optimization engine 126 to focus on securing ad slots that are not only likely to perform well but are also cost-effective. This strategic alignment helps in maximizing the impact of each ad dollar spent.[0047] The system 100 ensures that the advertiser 114’s CPO and performance estimates are not shared with the TV publisher 102. Keeping the CPO confidential prevents any potential manipulation of prices by TV publishers. If publishers were aware of the maximum cost advertisers are willing to pay per outcome, they might set their prices close to this threshold, which could lead to inflated advertising costs. Furthermore, advertisers’ strategies and financial thresholds are sensitive information. Protecting this data helps maintain the advertisers' competitive advantage and prevents any misuse of the information. By withholding specific performance goals and cost metrics from publishers, the system 100 promotes a fairer and more competitive marketplace. Publishers set their prices based on market dynamics and the intrinsic value of their inventory, rather than the advertisers’ budget constraints.”
Examiner notes that optimizing ad placement (based on gathered data) , maximizing revenue for publishers and advertisers , and not sharing advertiser data with publisher data and vice versa , represents business practices/goals, not other technology/technical field. Improving these practices relates to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field.
The pending claims and USPTO Example 42, Claim 1 have different fact patterns and different claimed limitations, and thus the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Example 42, Claim 1, it was deemed that the claim was eligible since it was not directed to a judicial exception – i.e. the claim as a whole integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application; specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Contrary to Example 42, Claim 1, the pending instant claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above; the pending instant elements do not recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. The pending instant claims, as a whole, do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, as noted above.
There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec., including the paras noted by the Applicant, that the instant claims, when implemented, improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Claims 1 and 14 were rejected over Stukenborg (US 2010/0017298) in view of Bennett (US 2018/0330408) and Hogan (US 2025/0039516). The Office Action mapped Stukenborg to receiving publisher input data, Bennett to receiving advertiser input data, and Hogan to the neutral optimization engine. None of these references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the data-architecture limitations now recited by claims 1 and 14 as amended. Claims 1 and 14 as amended recite that "the CPO goals and the performance estimates are stored in at least one first data structure that is separate from at least one second data structure storing the input data from the TV publisher, the computer system comprises a publisher-facing component through which the input data from the TV publisher is received, the publisher-facing component is configured with access permissions that prevent retrieval or display of the CPO goals and the performance estimates, and the neutral optimization engine accesses the input data from the advertiser and the input data from the TV publisher without a shared data repository that would expose the CPO goals or the performance estimates to the publisher- facing component." The Office Action did not cite Stukenborg, Bennett, or Hogan for any of these limitations, and none of them discloses them. Stukenborg describes a simultaneous ascending auction for
broadcast advertising slots; its publisher interface module 302 and advertiser interface module 304 are auction interfaces, not a system in which advertiser CPO goals and performance estimates are stored in a data structure separate from publisher data, with access permissions on a publisher-facing component preventing their retrieval or display. Bennett describes predictive real-time ad placement on network-accessible devices; it does not address segregated data structures or access-controlled publisher-facing components that prevent exposure of advertiser CPO data. Hogan describes media-plan generation for remnant TV advertising from the advertiser's perspective; it does not disclose the claimed architecture in which a neutral optimization engine accesses both advertiser and publisher data without a shared repository exposing the advertiser's CPO goals or performance estimates to a publisher- facing component. The Office Action's own treatment of dependent claim 3 confirms this gap. Claim 3 recites "maintaining confidentiality of the CPO goals from the TV publisher during the optimizing." To supply even this general confidentiality limitation, the Office Action relied on an additional reference, Jain (US 9,680,923). See Office Action, page 8. Jain's confidentiality is directed to a different context: keeping one publisher's requirements and objectives confidential from other publishers in a joint-distribution partner-matching system. See Jain, col. 2, 11. 40-55. Jain does not teach or suggest the architecture recited by claims 1 and 14 as amended, in which an advertiser's CPO goals and performance estimates are stored in a data structure separate from publisher input data, a publisher-facing component is configured with access permissions preventing their retrieval or display, and the optimization engine accesses both data sets without a shared repository exposing them. Claims 1 and 14 as amended also recite "calculating, for each time segment of the plurality of time segments, a respective unit rate by multiplying a CPO goal of the CPO goals by the performance estimate associated with the time segment; collecting, by the computer system, ongoing performance data of live ones of the advertising campaigns; dynamically adjusting the calculated unit rates in real time based on the ongoing performance data; and updating the placement of the advertising campaigns based on the dynamically adjusted unit rates." The Office Action did not cite Stukenborg, Bennett, or Hogan for these limitations. Liassides (US 2017/0070789) was cited only for dependent claims 5 and 16, and even there the cited passage concerns forecast impressions multiplied by a sell CPM within a budget, not a CPO goal multiplied by a segment- specific performance estimate. Yang (US 2011/0213654) was cited only for dependent claims 6 and 17. Neither Liassides nor Yang was applied to claims 1 or 14, and combining them now would require a new rationale not presented in the Office Action. The Office Action's rationale that the claims represent "merely a combination of old elements" yielding "predictable results" cannot supply limitations that are absent from every cited reference. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that claims 1 and 14 as amended are not obvious over Stukenborg, Bennett, and Hogan, whether taken alone or in combination. Withdrawal of the rejection as to claims 1 and 14 is respectfully requested. Dependent Claims 2-13 and 15-20 Claims 2-13 and 21 depend from claim 1, and claims 15-20 and 22 depend from claim 14. Because claims 1 and 14 as amended are patentable for the reasons set forth above, claims 2-13, 15-22 are patentable for at least the same reasons. New claims 21 and 22 are additionally patentable because none of the cited references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests that the neutral optimization engine processes the input data from the advertiser using at least one abstraction layer that does not expose the CPO goals or the performance estimates to the publisher-facing component, and generates an optimization output that specifies the placement and the calculated unit rates without revealing the CPO goals or the performance estimates that influenced the placement. Withdrawal of the rejection as to these claims is respectfully requested.
The prior art rejection of pending independent claims 1/14 has been overcome and has been withdrawn. The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of
claims 1-22. Stukenborg (20100017298) teaches advertising inventory allocation, including: identifying, by a data processing device, advertisement spots for allocation, wherein two or more contiguous advertisement spots define an advertisement block receiving, by a data processing device, bid criteria from bidders; allocating, by a data processing device, advertisement spots to first bidders based on a per-spot price; de-allocating, by a data processing device, the allocated advertisement spots in an advertisement block that includes an advertisement spot that was not allocated based on the per-spot price; and re-allocating, by a data processing device, the advertisement spots in the advertisement block to the first bidders based on a per-bid price. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
10/2/2026
