DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 2025 October 15 has been entered. The following is in reply to the Amendments and Arguments.
Claims amended: 1, 11
Claims cancelled: none
Claims added: none
Claims currently pending: 1-20
Response to Arguments
Applicant, in the “REMARKS” and “REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101” sections, presents opening remarks regarding the disposition of the claims, the amendments to the claims, and the analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As no specific argument is raised in this/these section(s) with respect to the instant application, no rebuttal is required.
Applicant, in the “REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103” section, refers to newly amended claim language regarding, “instructions for orientation of the user display device, positioning of rich media content relative to a currently-visible section of content, or instructions for installing or updating a media player plugin”. Applicant then argues, in turn, that each of the previously applied prior art references (to the independent claims) of Qian, Liang, and Lewis do not disclose these newly amended features. These arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein with respect to Vestergaard and Krassner which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Applicant does not present any arguments in support of the patentability of the dependent claims except to assert that the claims are patentable based on their dependence from the independent claim(s). Therefore, said dependent claims stand rejected under the grounds of rejection presented herein and no detailed rebuttal is required.
35 USC § 101 Discussion
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.
Step 1: Claims 11-20 are directed towards a method. Claims 1-10 are directed towards a system. Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A - Prong One: As per MPEP 2106.04, Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement".
The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2B - Prong Two). The claims recite the abstract idea of determining content delivery parameters based on information regarding a user device hardware and web portal characteristics which is found within certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’). Thus, Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception.
The claims offer the additional elements of user display device comprising a computing hardware configured to execute a software product thereon, a server arrangement comprising at least a database and an analysis server coupled via a data communication network. It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. The additional element(s) are simply utilized as generic computing tools to implement the abstract idea, functioning as mere instructions to apply the exception as noted in MPEP 2106.05(f). The specification further illustrates that the invention is performed using generic computer hardware with the statement in 0041: "Furthermore, the computing hardware 104 can be implemented as one or more individual processors, processing devices and various elements associated with a processing device that may be shared by other processing devices". Furthermore, the claims appear to be a solution to a commercial/business problem presenting content (i.e. advertisements) to a user in a format usable by the user.
The claims offer implementation of the abstract idea of determining content delivery parameters based on information regarding a user device hardware and web portal characteristics with the additional elements of scanning the web portal for "individual CSS identifier" and matching the CSS identifier with identifiers stored in a database of identifiers. This additional element, in combination with the remainder of the claim language, integrate the inventive concept in a practical application that utilizes particular features of modern web presentation technologies (i.e., Cascading Style Sheets).
Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis under Step 2B does not consider the elements describing the abstract ideas that are set forth above in Step 2A. Instead, the analysis only assesses the claim limitations other than the invention's use of the ineligible concepts to which the claims are directed. The court's precedent has consistently employed this same approach, and as a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add "significantly more" to it. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Step 2B was not reach due to the determination that the claims are directed towards a practical application.
References of Record but not Applied in the Current Grounds of Rejection
The prior art listed below is made of record as considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is not relied upon in the grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Those starred with '*' were added to this list in this Office action. Those without "*" were added in a previous Office action and are not repeated on a PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form, but are maintained herein for informational purposes only.
Farouk (Pub. #: US 2003/0009567 A1) discloses a system for presenting content to a device based upon that device’s profile information.
Inagaki et al. (Pub. #: JP 2015075944 A) discloses a processing device which transfers a content to an external display device and displays the content in a layout suitable for the external display device while reducing the processing load on the server.
Malandrino discloses, in “MIMOSA: context-aware adaptation for ubiquitous web access”, a system for tailoring of web content to different devices and usage conditions including an available bandwidth, device capabilities, device status and user preferences.
Examiner's Note on the Format of the Prior Art Rejections
The prior art rejections below contain underlined markings of the limitations (e.g. sample limitation). The underlined portions of a claim are addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim. Examiner notes that the underlining of the claim language is not a statement that the primary reference does not teach that language, but simply that said claim language is addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim.
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 1-7, 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Qian et al. (Pub. #: US 2016/0246860 A1) in view of
Liang et al. (Pub. #: US 2017/0351644 A1) in view of
Lewis et al. (Pub. #: US 2009/0197582 A1) in view of
Vestergaard et al. (Pub. #: US 2013/0047074 A1) in view of
Krassner et al. (Pub. #: US 2013/0198608 A1).
Claim(s) 1, 11:
These claims are analogous with different representative embodiments; claim 11 is a method embodiment and claim 1 is a system embodiment. Qian teaches a computer system with computer-readable media in at least 0113-0118 for performing the steps:
(i) at least a one user display device comprising a computing hardware configured to execute a software product thereon;
(Qian discloses at least a "media device" running an "application" in at least Figure 1 and 0034-0039.)
and (ii) a server arrangement comprising at least an analysis server coupled via a data communication network for communicating the rich media content to the at least one user display device; wherein: (a) the executed software product is configured to enable interaction between the at least one user display device and a user of the at least one user display device and to communicate with the server arrangement via the data communication network,
(Qian discloses a "Content Distribution Computer System" in communication with the "media device" for presenting "media content" in at least Figure 1 and 0039-0042. Qian further discloses that the systems communicate utilizing a "network" in at least 0031-0033. Examiner notes that claim 11 contains, "the software product is configured to communicate with a server arrangement via a data communication network; and the server arrangement comprises at least a data base and an analysis server couple via the data communication network for communicating the rich media content to the at least one user display device", which, while worded differently, comprises substantially the same content as the above limitations of claim 1.)
wherein the software product is configured to generate a graphical user interface to be displayed on the at least one user display device to facilitate the interaction;
(Qian discloses a “media device” for presenting “media content” in at least Figure 1 and 0039-0042. Qian further discloses that computer systems disclosed therein may comprise a “display 612…for displaying information to a computer user” and receiving “user input” which corresponds to “interaction” in at least Figure 6 and 0116.)
(b) the software product is configured to detect information about hardware and web portal characteristics of the at least one user display device, wherein the information about the hardware and the web portal characteristics is detected by: scanning a web portal for an individual CSS identifier, and matching the scanned individual CSS identifier with a CSS identifier stored in the database; and the web portal characteristics include at least one of type, configuration, style, identity and/or associated bandwidth of the web portal; (c) the software product is configured to communicate the information about hardware and web portal characteristics to the analysis server in the server arrangement;
(Qian discloses that the media device reports its identity via communications with the server in at least 0047-0051, including "hardware specifications" which corresponds to "hardware characteristics" and "software specifications" which corresponds to "web portal characteristics" in at least 0051.)
and (d) the analysis server is configured to determine unique content delivery parameters based on the information about hardware and web portal characteristics as communicated by the software product,
wherein the unique content delivery parameters include instructions related to updating a preinstalled media player plugin,
orientation of the at least one user display device,
position of the rich media content relative to currently-visible section of content,
and installation of a media player plugin;
Claim 11 contains the additional limitation:
and (e) providing the at least one user display device with the rich media content to be displayed based on the unique content delivery parameters.
(Qian discloses a "Device Information Identification Computer System" that receives device information and determine a content format appropriate for the requesting device in at least Figure 1, 0042, 0048, 0050, 0072 and 0085 and with the statement, "For example, a system that is configured to generate user interface displays may interface with the device information identification computer system 118 to format requested user interface displays based on a particular type of requesting device" found in 0050.)
wherein the communication between the software product and the analysis server is a two-way operation to determine a correct configuration of the rich media content,
and wherein the two-way operation is configured to determine an anomaly in the presentation of the rich media content,
(Qian discloses a "Device Information Identification Computer System" that communicates with the "Content Distribution Computer System" in at least Figure 1, 0057-0059, 0075-0080, and 0094. The former of which corresponds to the "software product"; the latter of which includes an "Analytics Component" that corresponds to the "analysis server". Qian further discloses monitoring the use of the content to detect situations "where a device profile provides incorrect information for a particular type of media device" (0098), specifically calling out detecting an "anomaly" (0103) and performing an action in response in at least 0098-0107.)
wherein the analysis server is configured to identify user behaviour based on the information communicated by the software product, and wherein the analysis server is further configured to modify the rich media content based on the identified user behavior.
As for, "wherein the information about the hardware and the web portal characteristics is detected by: scanning a web portal for an individual CSS identifier, and matching the scanned individual CSS identifier with a CSS identifier stored in the database;": Qian discloses that the media device reports its identity via communications with the server in at least 0047-0051, including "hardware specifications" which corresponds to "hardware characteristics" and "software specifications" which corresponds to "web portal characteristics" in at least 0051. Qian does not appear to specify the use of a CSS identifier matched to a database of CSS identifiers. However, Liang teaches a technique of matching a CSS "selector" to a "local advertisement filtering rule library" wherein the web page is modified based on the matching in at least Figure 2 and 0042-0049. That is, the system of Liang detects a specific CSS identifier that is matched with an entry in a database for which a specific action is taken that modifies the presentation of the webpage.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content modification and selection system of Qian with the method of content modification based on a detected CSS identifier matching an entry in a database as taught by Liang. Motivation to combine the references comes from the desire for a user to control the display of certain webpages (Liang: 0002-0004).
As for, “wherein the analysis server is configured to identify user behaviour based on the information communicated by the software product, and wherein the analysis server is further configured to modify the rich media content based on the identified user behavior.”: Qian discloses modifying media dependent upon a type of media device in at least 0034-0051 and 0098-0107. Qian does not appear to specify identifying user behavior based on information received from a software product and modifying the media content based thereon. However, Lewis teaches a technique for receiving data regarding user behavior that includes at least “interaction with advertisements on a mobile communication device” wherein the user information is used to “select micro-targeted advertisements” in at least 0032, 0037. Lewis further teaches that the “behavior of the user is sensed via the user interface” in at least 0036.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content modification and selection system of Qian, in view of Liang, with the user-behavior based content selection technique of Lewis. Motivation to combine Qian, in view of Liang, with Lewis comes from both references pertaining to content delivery to users and to provide the most pertinent advertisements to users (Lewis: 0013-0016).
As for, “wherein the unique content delivery parameters include instructions related to updating a preinstalled media player plugin,”, “wherein the unique content delivery parameters include instructions related to…orientation of the at least one user display device”, and “and installation of a media player plugin;”: Qian, in view of Liang and Lewis, does not appear to specify delivery parameters related to a media player plugin and updating of the media player plugin. However, Vestergaard teaches a technique for including a media player add-on or instructions to install the add-on with media content files in at least 0009. Vestergaard further teaches a technique for tailoring media content based on at least “display orientation” in at least 0181-186.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content modification and selection system of Qian, in view of Liang and Lewis, with plugin installation and updating and device orientation techniques taught by Vestergaard. Motivation to combine the references derives from the desire to overcome barriers to the viewing of content on user devices (Vestergaard: 0013-0020).
As for, “wherein the unique content delivery parameters include instructions related to…position of the rich media content relative to currently-visible section of content,”: Qian, in view of Liang, Lewis, and Vestergaard, does not appear to specify adjusting content based on a position relative to currently-visible section of content. However, Krassner teaches a technique of determining content parameters based upon at least a user’s scroll position and the position of media content relative to viewable content areas in at least 0130-0162, including the content of the table therein.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content modification and selection system of Qian, in view of Liang, Lewis, and Vestergaard, with the additional content parameters taught by Krassner. Motivation to combine the references derives from the desire to accurately measure and track the effectiveness and usage of media content (Krassner: 0132).
Claim(s) 2, 12:
wherein the software product is further configured to generate a unique visual presentation of the rich media content based on the unique content delivery parameters determined by the analysis server.
(Qian discloses a "Device Information Identification Computer System" that receives device information and determine a content format appropriate for the requesting device in at least Figure 1, 0042, 0048, 0050, 0072, and 0085 and with the statement, "For example, a system that is configured to generate user interface displays may interface with the device information identification computer system 118 to format requested user interface displays based on a particular type of requesting device" found in 0050.)
Claim(s) 3, 13:
wherein the database is configured to receive connection from the analysis server; and the database comprises pre-determined characteristics of the hardware and the web portal characteristics of the at least one user display device.
(Qian discloses a database (i.e., a "Data Store") containing "Device Information" comprising pre-determined characteristics of the device in at least Figure 1, 0051 and 0057-0058. Qian further discloses a separate "third party" database accessed by the "Device information collection component" in at least 0054.)
Claim(s) 4, 14:
wherein the software product is further configured to update or modify the user display device in real-time based on the unique content delivery parameters provided by the analysis server.
(Qian discloses a "Device Information Identification Computer System" that receives device information and determine a content format appropriate for the requesting device in at least Figure 1, 0042, 0048, 0050, 0072, and 0085 and with the statement, "For example, a system that is configured to generate user interface displays may interface with the device information identification computer system 118 to format requested user interface displays based on a particular type of requesting device" found in 0050.)
Claim(s) 5, 15:
wherein the software product is further configured to modify the user display device by optimizing visual size of the rich media content based on the unique content delivery parameters provided by the analysis server.
(Qian discloses a "Device Information Identification Computer System" that receives device information and determine a content format appropriate for the requesting device in at least Figure 1, 0042, 0048, 0050, 0072, and 0085 and including "a display screen size" and "playable video dimensions" found in 0052.)
Claim(s) 6, 16:
wherein the software product is further configured to collect information associated with the user display device and the web portal.
(Qian discloses collecting display device and web portal information in at least 0054, and 0094.)
Claim(s) 7, 17:
wherein the information associated with the user display device includes at least one of: position of the rich media content as displayed in the user display device; type of the rich media content displayed in the user display device; hardware device identity of the user display device; screen size of the web portal displayed in the user display device; web portal identity of the web portal displayed in the user display device; and data communication speed associated with the data communication network.
(Qian discloses at least a hardware device identity and web portal identity via the "media device type's hardware and software specifications" and discloses screen size via "display screen size" in at least 0052.)
Claims 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Qian et al. (Pub. #: US 2016/0246860 A1) in view of
Liang et al. (Pub. #: US 2017/0351644 A1) in view of
Lewis et al. (Pub. #: US 2009/0197582 A1) in view of
Vestergaard et al. (Pub. #: US 2013/0047074 A1) in view of
Krassner et al. (Pub. #: US 2013/0198608 A1) in view of
Werner et al. (Pub. #: US 2014/0224867 A1).
Claim(s) 8, 18:
As for, “wherein the software product is further configured to maintain a record of the web portal identity that is independent of connection status to the analysis server”:
Qian does not appear to specify a record of web portal identity that is independent of connection status and maintained by means of a cookie and stored in a database and a record of rich media content displayed on the web portal. However, Werner teaches "a web cookie" which "includes information about the user's online browsing history" in at least 0100 that is obtained by a server upon settings and approval of the user in at least 0100 for use in selecting content to be displayed to the user in at least 0101-0103.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content modification and selection system of Qian, in view of Liang and Lewis, with the method of offline cookie storage of user information that is used for content selection as taught by Werner. Motivation to do so comes from both references being directed towards methods of selecting content to be displayed to a user based on information retrieved from a user's browser and the additional method of retrieval of Werner would have readily been applied to the system of Qian to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 9, 19:
As for, “wherein the record is maintained by means of a cookie”:
Qian does not appear to specify a record of web portal identity that is independent of connection status and maintained by means of a cookie and stored in a database and a record of rich media content displayed on the web portal. However, Werner teaches "a web cookie" which "includes information about the user's online browsing history" in at least 0100 that is obtained by a server upon settings and approval of the user in at least 0100 for use in selecting content to be displayed to the user in at least 0101-0103.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content modification and selection system of Qian, in view of Liang and Lewis, with the method of offline cookie storage of user information that is used for content selection as taught by Werner. Motivation to do so comes from both references being directed towards methods of selecting content to be displayed to a user based on information retrieved from a user's browser and the additional method of retrieval of Werner would have readily been applied to the system of Qian to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 10, 20:
As for, “wherein the analysis server is further configured to collect information associated with the web portal identity from the software product and direct the database to store data related to the web portal, and wherein the data stored in the database is a record of specific rich media content to be displayed on the web portal”:
Qian does not appear to specify a record of web portal identity that is independent of connection status and maintained by means of a cookie and stored in a database and a record of rich media content displayed on the web portal. However, Werner teaches "a web cookie" which "includes information about the user's online browsing history" in at least 0100 that is obtained by a server upon settings and approval of the user in at least 0100 for use in selecting content to be displayed to the user in at least 0101-0103.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content modification and selection system of Qian, in view of Liang and Lewis, with the method of offline cookie storage of user information that is used for content selection as taught by Werner. Motivation to do so comes from both references being directed towards methods of selecting content to be displayed to a user based on information retrieved from a user's browser and the additional method of retrieval of Werner would have readily been applied to the system of Qian to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT SNIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-9604. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 9:00-4:30 Mountain (11:00-6:30 Eastern).
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.
/S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621