DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Track One Application.
Response to Amendment
2.. An Amendment was filed July 2, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”) and has been entered into the record and fully considered. The Amendment was filed in response to a Non-Final Rejection dated April 2, 2026.
Despite the Amendment to the Claims and Applicant’s remarks, the Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection are hereby maintained; although, the Rejection under §103 is based on NEW GROUNDS NECESSITATED BY THE AMENDMENT.
An explanation of the maintained Rejections and a response to Applicant’s arguments are set forth below. Please see the “Conclusion” section of this Action below for important information regarding responding to this Action.
STATUS OF CLAIMS:
Claims 1 – 30 remain pending in this Application.
The independent claims were amended in substantially identical/similar fashion, making it unnecessary to address each Claim. That said, Claim 11 is expressed in broader terms than Claim 11 and is addressed separately.
Many of the dependent Claims were amended in a trivial or non-substantive manner. Others were amended in a similar manner and only the relevant ones are addressed below. Therefore, the following explanation of the maintained rejections with regard to Claims 1 and 11 and 8 and 9 is considered explanatory of the Rejection as a whole.
OFFICE NOTE: Interviews are always welcome at any stage of prosecution. Please use the AIR form for scheduling an interview if such is desired. The link for the AIR form is found at the end of this Action.
The examiner would like to propose an Amendment that may place this Application in condition for allowance, subject to a final search and supervisor approval of issues under §101.
Furthermore, the interviews of June 17 and 30, 2026 were helpful in clarifying the issues raised in this Amendment.
With regard to the Amendment:
Claim 1 was amended as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
696
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
482
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 was amended as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
712
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
153
637
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claims 8 and 9, which represent slightly more substantive amendments, were amended as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
612
662
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to §101:
The Examiner notes with gratitude that the independent Claim 1 has been amended in an attempt to advance prosecution. However, with regard to 101, respectfully, the Amendment does not advance prosecution in a material manner.
Thus, the amendments to the Claim do not alter the analysis set for the Non-Final Rejection regarding §101. The only changes relate to:
Selecting a bid;
Retrieving option data associated with bidding information
Generating an intervention instruction
Using a common identifier to generate the intervention; and
Outputting the results.
These limitations are recited at a very high – extremely high – level of generality. There is nothing concrete or substantive about these recitations.
Receiving and analyzing data, generating instructions and identifiers are broad and abstract concepts. Computerized systems very typically and commonly perform such functions.
The Claim provides no specificity in terms of how this is accomplished or what detailed processes are used or whether they are special or used or applied in any special way. Only the mere outcome or result that an intervention is generated and used to modify the organic search results is recited. No special functionality is recited. No new computerized components are recited.
These limitations recite results or “outcome” of computer processing without specifying “how” a technical problem is solved. That is, the solution of a technical problem is not reflected in the Claim.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer elements at each step of the process is purely typical of processing data and especially data with privacy restrictions. Using a computer to receive data, analyze it, modify it, and provide output or results are among the most basic functions of a computer. Without greater specificity as to “how” certain functions solve a technical problem, the currently recited limitations can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of the Claim add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer elements nor does the claim reflect how an improvement in any other technology or technical field is achieved. Thus, Claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than instructions to “apply” the abstract idea of generating an AI chatbot to provide an estimate of a home for the purpose of some insurance product using some unspecified, generic algorithm and computer components. Such is not sufficient to integrate a practical application in the abstract idea.
The Examiner is prepared to suggest amendments that may overcome the 101 Rejection.
Claim 11 does not overcome this Rejection. It is recited at a level even higher than Claim 1. Dependent Claims, likewise, recite broad concepts of keywords and bidding information. These Claims do not provide the specificity required to constitute a practical application in light of the recited abstract idea identified in the Non-Final Rejection.
Accordingly, the Rejection is maintained.
With regard to §103:
The newly added citation is PCT Patent Publication No. WO 2025/023940 to Google (hereinafter “Google”).
The title is: Conditional content selection procedures
The Abstract is as follows:
“Systems, methods, and and/or algorithms facilitate the efficient provision of content to a client device, for filling content slots of an information resource having multiple content slots. A server receives, from a client device, a request for content to be included in the information resource and, in response, performs one or more content selection procedures to select one or more content items for one or more content slots. The server may, based on the results of the content selection procedure(s), conditionally perform or not perform one or more additional content selection procedures for one or more other content slots of the information resource. Alternatively or additionally, the server may, based on a format or content of one or more content items selected during the initial content selection procedure(s), apply one or more constraints to restrict which content items can be candidates in a one or more additional content selection procedures.” (Emphasis Added)
While couched in terms of “content selection,” it is clear that Google relates to sponsored search, since the Claims are recited broadly in this respect. See in particular section 0004. Furthermore, Google utilizes LLM’s to generate content for the search results. This is illustrated and described in connection with Fig. 3 which is as follows:
PNG
media_image6.png
563
472
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Thus, Fig. 3, itself, illustrates a more traditional sponsored search results comprising a listing of advertiser content. However, Google teaches the use of LLM’s to display the modified search results – modified by an intervention automatically generated by the system – and describes a modification to Fig. 3 as follows:
“[0050] In some implementations, the information resource 300 presents results in a different manner than shown in FIG. 3. For example, the search engine may utilize generative artificial intelligence (e.g., based on a large language model (LLM)), and the information resource 300 may, instead of providing an ordered list of search results, provide a single, paragraph-style text response to the user’s query. In one such implementation, sponsored content slots 320A-C are interspersed in the generated text response at fixed or dynamically varying locations.
[0051] In some implementations, the content slots 202 and 204A-D of FIG. 2, or the content slots 320A-C of FIG. 3, are all configured to display content of the same general type (e.g., video only, image only, text only, or text and images, etc.). In other implementations, different content slots of the same information resource can display content of different types, depending on which content is selected for the slots by the content server 104. For example, the content selector 150 may be constrained (by content filter 156) to only select a video content item for content slot 202, but be able to select either image (or image and text, etc.) or video (or video and text, etc.) content items for the remaining content slots 204 A-D.” (Emphasis Added)
Thus, Google teaches a wide variety of methods of displaying search results in a non-listed fashion. In the interview of June 17, 2026, the Applicant distinguished the prior art on this basis – that it does not teach the display of “free form text” or other forms of generative – i.e. natural language – output.
The Examiner’s summary of these discussions is as follows:
PNG
media_image7.png
105
697
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s summary of this portion of the discussion does not appear to contradict the Examiner’s record:
PNG
media_image8.png
178
668
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the new grounds of Rejection is sufficient to maintain the rejection under §103, despite the Amendment.
The obviousness of Claim 1 is further illustrated by the industry’s early adoption of LLM and generative ML models in connection with sponsored search. Please see, for example, the following Non-Patent Literature cited below:
Alphabet Inc., “Exclusive – Microsoft’s Bing plans AI ads in early pitch to advertisers,” Reuters, February 17, 2023
Therefore, despite the Amendments to Claim 1 and Applicant’s remarks, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined the natural language understanding search engine teachings of Reynaud in view of Roberts, wherein a personalized intervention is the resulting output of the processing of the evaluated bid, to add the generative output of Google. The motivation to do so comes from Reynaud. As quoted in the Non-Final Rejection, Reynaud teaches that bids are to be ranked based not only on price but other factors such as likelihood being selected.
Claim 11 is considered obvious for the same reasons. Despite the Amendment, it is obvious in view of Reynaud and Roberts and further in view of Google. For example, Google clearly teaches taking into consideration in intervening in the search results the bid amounts proposed by the advertisers. See at least 0038. With respect to Claims 7 – 9, Google teaches equivalent features at this section and also at 0043, 0061,and 0072.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments set forth in the Remarks section of the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to section 101 rejection, Applicant argues, in part, as follows:
PNG
media_image9.png
710
657
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The Office respectfully disagrees. Intervening in a search query and merely modifying the query with additional information – albeit supplied by advertisers – does not appear to solve a technical problem. It is was LLM’s do. It is tantamount to modifying a query once it is composed and before it is submitted to the model.
Accordingly, the Rejection must be maintained.
As to §103, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Accordingly, the Rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
5. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Finality
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. 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 date of this final action.
B. Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. the use of large language models (LLM’s) and other transformers for embedding advertising and promotional material – e.g. sponsored ads – into search results.) Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields – sponsored search.
Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0186940 to Harris et al. This reference relates to the concept of generating content for ads.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0139510 to Yang. This reference relates to the concept of training an LLM model to generate search results.
Non-Patent Literature:
Alphabet Inc., “Exclusive – Microsoft’s Bing plans AI ads in early pitch to advertisers,” Reuters, February 17, 2023
C. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
D. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. TEAMS).
To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
E. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
william.bunker@uspto.gov
(571) 272-0017
July 27, 2026
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights