DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 11/1/2021 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-15 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
This application is a CON of 14/871,808 09/30/2015 PAT 11,164,211 which claims benefit of 62/060,687 10/07/2014. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-15 are objected to for depending on independent claim 1 (a system claim), but should depend from independent claim 12, a method claim. For examination purpose, it is considered that claims 13-15 depend from the independent claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), except as otherwise indicated in the Office Action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a campaign management subsystem configured to …”, in claim 1; “an analytics subsystem configured to …” in claim 1 and claim 4; “instrumentation subsystem configured to …” in claim 2; “one or more subsystems configured to …” in claim 5, claim 6, claim 8, claim 9, claim 10; “interface components to permit …” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-11 are rejected for reciting the elements: “a campaign management subsystem configured to …”, in claim 1; “an analytics subsystem configured to …” in claim 1 and claim 4; “instrumentation subsystem configured to …” in claim 2; “one or more subsystems configured to …” in claim 5, claim 6, claim 8, claim 9, claim 10; “interface components to permit …” in claim 11. For these elements, there are no sufficient algorithms in the specification or drawings to perform the respectively recited functions.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for compact prosecution purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-15 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 the applicant regards as the invention. Such a claim is not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the 'metes and bounds' of the protection involved (IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1140 (CA FCs 2005); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548).
Claims 1, 4-11 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 applicant regards as the invention.
The claim limitations “a campaign management subsystem configured to …”, in claim 1; “an analytics subsystem configured to …” in claim 1 and claim 4; “instrumentation subsystem configured to …” in claim 2; “one or more subsystems configured to …” in claim 5, claim 6, claim 8, claim 9, claim 10; “interface components to permit …” in claim 11 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for compact prosecution purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1, 2-7, 9-11, 13-15 are directed to a system, claim 8 is directed to a system, and claim 12 is directed to a computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A digital marketing system for managing digital marketing to a multiplicity of consumers by way of portable wireless digital devices (PWDDs), the system comprising: a simplified human-device interface presented on the PWDDs;
an instrumentation subsystem configured to
[B] collect interaction and behavioral data from the PWDD human-device interface, and to
[C] collect other user- characterizing data from PWDD;
a campaign management subsystem configured to
[D] permit digital content options and promotions to be defined and to be made available for targeting into specific locations within the human-device interface so as to operate in a controlled way;
an analytics subsystem configured to
[E] process the interaction data, behavioral data and other user-characterizing data in accordance with a knowledge the states of each of the multiplicity of consumers so as to permit controlling digital content options and promotions displayed to the consumer;
a display subsystem stored on the PWDD configured to
[F] control the display of digital content options and promotions at specific locations within the human-device interface; and
a reporting subsystem configured to
[G] report on the display, response, and financial performance of the digital content and promotions.
Independent claim 1 recites: collecting different types of data ([B], [C]), defining and making available digital content options ([D]); processing user interaction and characterization data ([E]); and controlling for displaying promotion content and financial performance ([F], [G]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the additional elements “portable wireless digital device,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not prevent from carrying out the identified abstract idea customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 1 is deemed ineligible.
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 8 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A system for managing marketing communications and other digital content delivery to portable wireless digital devices (PWDDs)
one or more subsystems configured to
[B] capture user interactions and other user-characterizing data by way of PWDD instrumentation and sensors;
one or more subsystems configured to
[C] analyze the captured user behavior, other user-characterizing data, contexts of consumer content consumption and marketing opportunities presented on the PWDD,
[D] whereby one or more pieces of available marketing communications or other digital content are selected for display; and
one or more controlled content locations within a simplified human-device interface configured to
[E] display the selected marketing communications or other digital content.
Independent claim 8 recites: a marketing system that captures user interaction ([A], [B]); analyzing captured user data along with market opportunities ([C]); selecting for display marketing communication data [D] and displaying the digital content and the communication ([E]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 8 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the additional elements “portable wireless digital devices,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not prevent from carrying out the identified abstract idea customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 8 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 8 is deemed ineligible.
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 12 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A method for managing marketing communications and other digital content presentation on portable wireless digital devices (PWDDs)
[B] providing a simplified human-device interface to the PWDDs so as to enable access to digital communications and digital content;
[C] capturing user interactions and other user-characterizing data by way of PWDD instrumentation and sensors;
[D] controlling relevance and timing of digital marketing communications and other digital content displays based on the user interactions, other user-characterizing data and the contexts of the display opportunities on the PWDD;
[E] selecting one or more pieces of content from a set of available marketing communications or other digital content to display on the PWDD; and
[F] providing one or more controlled content locations within the simplified human-device interface configured to display the selected marketing communications or other digital content.
Independent claim 12 recites: managing marketing communication and capturing user interactions ([A], [C]); controlling digital data to be displayed ([D]); and selecting and displaying the selected content ([E], [F]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 12 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the additional elements “portable wireless digital devices” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not prevent from carrying out the identified abstract idea customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: capturing user-relevant data ([C]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 12 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 12 is deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 4 recites:
appraise various sensory and motor-control capabilities of the consumer,
appraise an available bandwidth, and
monitor behavior of the consumer by way of device instrumentation so as to control configurable aspects of the simplified human-device interface,
whereby consumer satisfaction with digital communications and digital content access may be improved.
Dependent Claim 4 merely elaborates on the abstract idea of independent claim 1 identified above. Claim 5 does not recite any new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A2, or Step 2B, and therefore, is ineligible for the same reasons like independent claim 1. Moreover, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites:
enable support to be provided to the consumers by administrators, friends, family, in-house support parties, or third party entities.
Dependent Claim 5 merely elaborates on the abstract idea of independent claim 1 identified above. Claim 5 does not recite any new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A2, or Step 2B, and therefore, is ineligible for the same reasons like independent claim 1. Moreover, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 5 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites:
enable the consumers to share personal health-related sensory data with a remote healthcare service provider.
Dependent Claim 6 merely elaborates on the abstract idea of independent claim 1 identified above. Claim 6 does not recite any new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A2, or Step 2B, and therefore, is ineligible for the same reasons like independent claim 1. Moreover, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 6 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites:
enable the consumer to share digital content and participate in digital communications with other, nominated PWDD consumers in accordance with a set of regulated privileges.
Dependent Claim 7 merely elaborates on the abstract idea of independent claim 1 identified above. Claim 7 does not recite any new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A2, or Step 2B, and therefore, is ineligible for the same reasons like independent claim 1. Moreover, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites:
configure the simplified human-device interface for each user.
Dependent Claim 8 merely elaborates on the abstract idea of independent claim 1 identified above. Claim 8 does not recite any new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A2, or Step 2B, and therefore, is ineligible for the same reasons like independent claim 8. Moreover, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 9 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites:
monitor marketing performance of the marketing communications and other digital content presented on the PWDD.
Dependent Claim 10 merely elaborates on the abstract idea of independent claim 1 identified above. Claim 10 does not recite any new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A2, or Step 2B, and therefore, is ineligible for the same reasons like independent claim 8. Moreover, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 10 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 11 recites:
permit controlled access to third-party partner services.
Dependent Claim 11 merely elaborates on the abstract idea of independent claim 1 identified above. Claim 11 does not recite any new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A2, or Step 2B, and therefore, is ineligible for the same reasons like independent claim 8. Moreover, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 11 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 15 recites:
configuring the simplified human-device interface for senior users, users with impaired cognitive capabilities, users with impaired sensory capabilities or impaired physical movement, and users with limited knowledge or interest in information technology.
Dependent Claim 15 merely elaborates on the abstract idea of independent claim 1 identified above. Claim 15 does not recite any new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A2, or Step 2B, and therefore, is ineligible for the same reasons like independent claim 12. Moreover, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 15 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 13-14 recite:
wherein the simplified human-device interface is consumer-configurable so as to improve the efficiency and satisfaction of digital communications and digital content access.
wherein the simplified human-device interface is configured for senior users, users with impaired cognitive capabilities, users with impaired sensory capabilities or impaired physical movement, and users with limited knowledge or interest in information technology.
wherein contributions generated by way of marketing or partner activities are used to reduce costs to the user.
wherein contributions generated by way of marketing or partner activities are used to reduce costs to users receiving healthcare monitoring and healthcare related benefits supported by way of the system.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the simplified huma interface; the generated contributions – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (customizing digital content promotions by utilizing collected user data), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 13-14 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramer et al (US 2011/0258049).
Regarding Claim 1: Ramer first embodiment discloses: A digital marketing system for managing digital marketing to a multiplicity of consumers by way of portable wireless digital devices (PWDDs), the system comprising: a simplified human-device interface presented on the PWDDs; {see at least fig1, rc172, [0116] – graphic user interface on a display of the mobile phone}
an instrumentation subsystem configured to {see at least fig1, rc102, [2063] – mobile communication … motion detection}
collect interaction and behavioral data from the PWDD human-device interface, and to collect other user-characterizing data from PWDD; {see at least fig38A, fig38B, fig39A, fig39B, [1446] request behavior data; [1467] operator may collect behavior information from interaction data; [0006], [0018] behavior data … interaction data; fig37, rc3702, [1439]-[1441] interaction database … the analytics facility may receive from the interaction database; [0127] – on-line usage amount … duration if on-line interactions … on-time payment history … content viewing history … content presented for viewed by/not viewed by user, content and programs downloaded, videos, music, and audio listened to and/or downloaded, television watched, timing and duration of viewing/downloading; reads on interaction and behavioral data; [0110] – geographic location of the user, proximity to other locations …; [0119] GPS location capability; [0124] collection of geographic or other location data on users; [0127]-[0128] – phone usage and location; [0115], [0121] – bar code scanner … phone camera … voice entry}
collect other user-characterizing data from PWDD; {see at least [0127] – collecting data about age, sex, race, religion, area code, home address, work address, billing address, credit card information, passwords, family information (e.g., mother's maiden name), birthplace, driver's license number, employer, position, annual income, income bracket, items purchased, friends and family information (including any of the foregoing types of information) and the like; reads on user-characterizing data; [0188] use information from user’s profile database …; [1064] … select a user profile (reads on user-characterizing data); [1138] The profile management platform may collect search activity, browsing behavior, ad interaction and any explicitly stated demographic or profile information. This data may be passed with an ad request or enhanced by proprietary data sources.}
a display subsystem stored on the PWDD configured to {see at least fig1, rc172, [0116] – graphic user interface on a display of the mobile phone}
control the display of digital content options and promotions at specific locations within the human-device interface; and {see at least fig1, rc172, [0116] – graphic user interface on a display of the mobile phone; [1046] – banner may be embedded into the banner content; reads displaying on specific location}
a reporting subsystem configured to {see at least fig1, rc102, [0464] – providing information about query (reads on reporting subsystem}
report on the display, response, and financial performance of the digital content and promotions. {see at least [0198]-[0199] – … provides relevant content to users …; fig2, [0204]-[0205] – … present tailored results to the user … [0957] – financial metrics … indicate the financial results of associating a given product with behavioral metrics related to a mobile content; [0465] – reporting revenue generation}
Ramer first embodiment does not disclose, however, Ramer second embodiment discloses:
a campaign management subsystem configured to ??????
permit digital content options and promotions to be defined and to be made available for targeting into specific locations within the human-device interface so as to operate in a controlled way; {see at least [0289]-[0291] – a heavy on-line user entering "blog" may be sent to the day's most popular blogs, while a light user might be presented with more general results describing the blogging phenomenon; a short-duration user entering "football" may receive a list of the day's scores, while a long-duration user may receive articles on football; a frequent user entering "Peter" may receive only information relating to uses of that name in the day's news, while a less frequent visitor might receive more general results, ranging from Peter the Great to Pete Townsend to Peter Rabbit; [0169] – factors like page width …; reads on controlled access (i.e. based on rules as disclosed by the specification of the instant application at [0019])}
an analytics subsystem configured to {see at least fig41A, rc4110, rc4112, [0025] – … may apply data integration, statistical analysis, data mining, or some other data processing or analytic method, as described herein …; reads on analytics}
an analytics subsystem configured to {see at least fig1, rc102, [0464] – analyzing the received data (reads on analytics)}
process the interaction data, behavioral data and other user-characterizing data in accordance with a knowledge the states of each of the multiplicity of consumers so as to permit controlling digital content options and promotions displayed to the consumer; {see at least [0289]-[0291] – a heavy on-line user entering "blog" may be sent to the day's most popular blogs, while a light user might be presented with more general results describing the blogging phenomenon; for example, a short-duration user entering "football" may receive a list of the day's scores, while a long-duration user may receive articles on football; a frequent user entering "Peter" may receive only information relating to uses of that name in the day's news, while a less frequent visitor might receive more general results, ranging from Peter the Great to Pete Townsend to Peter Rabbit; [0292]-[0293] – a single user entering "love" may receive results relating to dating and relationships, while a married user might receive information relating to anniversaries; a user with children entering the term "cold" might receive health-related information relating to outbreaks of the common cold, while a user with no children might receive general weather information.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Ramer first embodiment to include the elements of Ramer second embodiment. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to define/select personalized content and promotions. In the instant case, Ramer first embodiment evidently discloses collecting and displaying interaction, behavior and user-characterizing data. Ramer second embodiment is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of defining content and promotions based on interaction, behavior and user-characterizing data in the same or similar context. Since both collecting and displaying interaction, behavior and user-characterizing data, as well as defining content and promotions based on interaction, behavior and user-characterizing data are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Ramer first embodiment, as well as Ramer second embodiment would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Ramer. **Examiner notes that the reference is being used here as a one-reference combination in this 103 rejection because the reference teaches several distinct embodiments within the same cited reference. Examiner also notes that within the reference, the different embodiments frequently refer to each other, for they are very loose variants of a digital marketing and ecommerce process tailored for portable wireless devices. Moreover, the definitions of the terms and operations is provided only a single time and not for every embodiment separately.**
Regarding Claims 2: Ramer second embodiment discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Ramer further discloses:
wherein the simplified human-device interface is consumer-configurable so as to improve the efficiency and satisfaction of digital communications and digital content access. {see at least [0138] – content more efficiently delivered to the user. The claim element “so as to improve the efficiency and satisfaction of digital communications and digital content access” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Ramer first embodiment, Ramer second embodiment to include additional elements of Ramer second embodiment. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to display the results of the operations. In the instant case, Ramer first embodiment, Ramer second embodiment evidently discloses defining/selecting personalized content and promotions. Ramer second embodiment is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a consumer-configurable simplified display interface in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 7: Ramer first embodiment discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Ramer further discloses: further comprising one or more associated applications configured to {see at least fig1, rc100, [0110] – plurality of computer applications; reads on associated applications}
enable the consumer to share digital content and participate in digital communications with other, nominated PWDD consumers in accordance with a set of regulated privileges. {see at least [0162] – photo sharing webpage; [0194] – permits sharing information securely (reads on regulated privileges); [0320] – content received via a peer-to-peer information sharing facility}
Regarding Claim 8: Ramer first embodiment discloses: A system for managing marketing communications and other digital content delivery to portable wireless digital devices (PWDDs), the system comprising:
capture user interactions and other user- characterizing data by way of PWDD instrumentation and sensors; {see at least fig38A, fig38B, fig39A, fig39B, – behavior; [0127] – on-line usage amount … duration if on-line interactions … on-time payment history … content viewing history … content presented for viewed by/not viewed by user, content and programs downloaded, videos, music, and audio listened to and/or downloaded, television watched, timing and duration of viewing/downloading; reads on interaction and behavioral data; [0110] – geographic location of the user, proximity to other locations …; [0119] GPS location capability; [0124] collection of geographic or other location data on users; [0127]-[0128] – phone usage and location; [0115], [0121] – bar code scanner … phone camera … voice entry}
Ramer first embodiment does not disclose, however Ramer second embodiment discloses:
one or more subsystems configured to {see at least fig1, rc102, [0464] – information about search query, … location of the mobile device … subscriber characteristics; reads on subsystem}
analyze the captured user behavior, other user-characterizing data, contexts of consumer content consumption and marketing opportunities presented on the PWDD, {see at least [0289]-[0294] – “on-line usage amount” reads on behavior; “on-line interactions” reads on interactions; “family status” reads on user-characterizing data; “shopping habits” reads on context of content consumption; “love … anniversary” reads on marketing opportunities}
whereby one or more pieces of available marketing communications or other digital content are selected for display; and {see at least [0199] – push content (e.g. ads) for immediate display; reads on marketing communications}
one or more controlled content locations within a simplified human-device interface configured to
display the selected marketing communications or other digital content. {see at least [0198]-[0199] – … provides relevant content to users …; fig2, [0204]-[0205] – … present tailored results to the user … [0957] – financial metrics … indicate the financial results of associating a given product with behavioral metrics related to a mobile content}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Ramer first embodiment to include the elements of Ramer second embodiment. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to define/select personalized content and promotions. In the instant case, Ramer first embodiment evidently discloses receiving user interactions and user-characterizing data. Ramer second embodiment is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of analyzing the captured data, selecting content and displaying the selection in the same or similar context. Since both receiving user interactions and user-characterizing data, as well as analyzing the captured data, selecting content and displaying the selection are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Ramer first embodiment, as well as Ramer second embodiment would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Ramer. **Examiner notes that the reference is being used here as a one-reference combination in this 103 rejection because the reference teaches several distinct embodiments within the same cited reference. Examiner also notes that within the reference, the different embodiments frequently refer to each other, for they are very loose variants of a digital marketing and ecommerce process tailored for portable wireless devices. Moreover, the definitions of the terms and operations is provided only a single time and not for every embodiment separately**
Regarding Claims 10: first embodiment discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Ramer further discloses: further comprising one or more subsystems configured to {see at least fig1, rc102, [0464] – information about search query, … location of the mobile device … subscriber characteristics}
monitor marketing performance of the marketing communications and other digital content presented on the PWDD. {see at least [0198]-[0199] – … provides relevant content to users …; fig2, [0204]-[0205] – … present tailored results to the user … [0957] – financial metrics … indicate the financial results of associating a given product with behavioral metrics related to a mobile content; [0465] – reporting revenue generation}
Regarding Claims 11: Ramer first embodiment discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Ramer further discloses: further comprising one or more interface components that
permit controlled access to third-party partner services. {see at least [1139] – may retrieve ads from various sources and select the appropriate ad(s) to return based on business rules, behavior, targeting, or some other criteria. The sources may include banner ad servers, paid search ad systems, ad networks and other third party ad providers. The integration of an ad provider with the monetization platform may shield operators and publishers from having to integrate with multiple ad providers}
Regarding Claim 12: Ramer first embodiment discloses: A method for managing marketing communications and other digital content presentation on portable wireless digital devices (PWDDs), the method comprising:
providing a simplified human-device interface to the PWDDs so as to enable access to digital communications and digital content; {see at least fig1, rc172, [0116] – graphic user interface on a display of the mobile phone}
capturing user interactions and other user-characterizing data by way of PWDD instrumentation and sensors; {see at least fig38A, fig38B, fig39A, fig39B, – behavior; reads on user interaction; [0127] – on-line usage amount … duration of on-line interactions … on-time payment history … content viewing history … content presented for viewed by/not viewed by user, content and programs downloaded, videos, music, and audio listened to and/or downloaded, television watched, timing and duration of viewing/downloading; reads on interaction and behavioral data;} and other user-characterizing data by way of PWDD instrumentation and sensors; {see at least fig38A, fig38B, fig39A, fig39B, – behavior; [0110] – geographic location of the user, proximity to other locations …; [0119] GPS location capability; [0124] collection of geographic or other location data on users; [0127]-[0128] – phone usage and location; [0115], [0121] – bar code scanner … phone camera … voice entry}
Ramer first embodiment does not disclose, however, Ramer second embodiment discloses
controlling relevance and timing of digital marketing communications and other digital content displays based on the user interactions, other user-characterizing data and the contexts of the display opportunities on the PWDD; {see at least [0289]-[0293] – a heavy on-line user entering "blog" (reads on relevance) may be sent to the day's most popular blogs, while a light user (reads on relevance) might be presented with more general results describing the blogging phenomenon; for example, a short-duration user entering "football" may receive a list of the day's scores, while a long-duration user may receive articles on football; a frequent user entering "Peter" may receive only information relating to uses of that name in the day's news, while a less frequent visitor might receive more general results, ranging from Peter the Great to Pete Townsend to Peter Rabbit; a single user entering "love" may receive results relating to dating and relationships, while a married user might receive information relating to anniversaries; a user with children entering the term "cold" might receive health-related information relating to outbreaks of the common cold, while a user with no children might receive general weather information.; [0167] – results may be tailored to the time of day; reads on controlling timing}
selecting one or more pieces of content from a set of available marketing communications or other digital content to display on the PWDD; and {see at least [0199] – push content (e.g. ads) for immediate display}
providing one or more controlled content locations within the simplified human-device interface configured to display the selected marketing communications or other digital content. {see at least [0169] – factors like page width …; reads on controlled access (i.e. based on rules as disclosed by the specification of the instant application at [0019]); fig48, [1046] – banner may be embedded into the banner content; reads on displaying in controlled content location}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Ramer first embodiment to include the elements of Ramer second embodiment. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to define/select personalized content and promotions. In the instant case, Ramer first embodiment evidently discloses capturing user interaction and user-characterizing data. Ramer second embodiment is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of controlling relevance and context, selecting content and displaying selected content in the same or similar context. Since both capturing user interaction and user-characterizing data, as well as controlling relevance and context, selecting content and displaying selected content are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Ramer first embodiment, as well as Ramer second embodiment would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Ramer. **Examiner notes that the reference is being used here as a one-reference combination in this 103 rejection because the reference teaches several distinct embodiments within the same cited reference. Examiner also notes that within the reference, the different embodiments frequently refer to each other, for they are very loose variants of a digital marketing and ecommerce process tailored for portable wireless devices. Moreover, the definitions of the terms and operations is provided only a single time and not for every embodiment separately**
Regarding Claims 13: second embodiment discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Ramer further discloses:
wherein contributions generated by way of marketing or partner activities are used to reduce costs to the user. {see at least [0285] – receive information about making choices (reads on marketing activities) … reduce the cost of wireless services (reads on partner activities); [0240] increase page load speed … minimize network costs. The claim element “used to reduce costs to the user” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide users with advantages. In the instant case, Ramer first embodiment, Ramer second embodiment evidently discloses defining/selecting personalized content and promotions. Ramer second embodiment is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of reducing user costs by taking contributions into consideration in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 3, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramer et al (US 2011/0258049), in view of Pham (US 2015/0081888), in further view of Tully (US 2015/0050626).
Regarding Claims 3, 15: Ramer discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Ramer does not disclose, however, Pham discloses:
wherein the simplified human-device interface is configured for … and users with limited knowledge or interest in information technology. {see at least [0118] – interface designed for user with limited IT knowledge}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Ramer to include the elements of Pham. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to adapt to user needs. In the instant case, Ramer evidently discloses collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content. Pham is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of customizing user display in the same or similar context. Since both collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content, as well as customizing user display are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Ramer, as well as Pham would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Ramer / Pham.
Ramer, Pham does not disclose, however, Tully discloses:
… senior users, users with impaired cognitive capabilities, users with impaired sensory capabilities or impaired physical movement, and … {see at least [0004] – … older than 65 (reads on senior users) …; cognitive deficiencies … impaired ability for motor activities … disturbance in executing functions …}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Ramer, Pham to include the elements of Tully. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to adapt to users with special needs. In the instant case, Ramer, Pham evidently discloses collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content. Tully is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of users with special needs in the same or similar context. Since both collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content, as well as users with special needs are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Ramer, Pham, as well as Tully would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Ramer, Pham / Tully.
Claims 4, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramer et al (US 2011/0258049), in view of Tully (US 2015/0050626).
Regarding Claims 4: Ramer discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Ramer further discloses: wherein the analytics subsystem is configured to {see at least fig1, rc102, [0464] – analyzing the received data (reads on analytics)}
appraise an available bandwidth, and {see at least [1061] – a bandwidth characteristic; [1234, [1527]}
monitor behavior of the consumer by way of device instrumentation so as to control configurable aspects of the simplified human-device interface, {see at least [0115] – using the phone camera for collecting data; fig38A, fig38B, fig39A, fig39B, – behavior; [0127] – on-line usage amount … duration if on-line interactions … on-time payment history … content viewing history … content presented for viewed by/not viewed by user, content and programs downloaded, videos, music, and audio listened to and/or downloaded, television watched, timing and duration of viewing/downloading; reads on behavioral data; [0169] – factors like page width …; reads on controlled access (i.e. based on rules as disclosed by the specification of the instant application at [0019]); [1046] – banner may be embedded into the banner content; reads on controlled content location. The claim element “so as to control configurable aspects of the simplified human-device interface” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
whereby consumer satisfaction with digital communications and digital content access may be improved. {see at least [0138] – content more efficiently delivered to the user; reads on improved satisfaction. Examiner note: It has been held that actions that may or may not be done are indefinite and do not distinguish the claim from the prior art (see MPEP 2172.02 and In re Collier, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution}
Ramer does not disclose, however, Tully discloses:
appraise various sensory and motor-control capabilities of the consumer, {see at least [0004] – … cognitive deficiencies … impaired ability for motor activities … disturbance in executing functions …; [0043]-[0044] components for assessing patient’s needs … neuropsychological assessment (reads on appraise capabilities)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Ramer to include the elements of Tully. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to better customize content and/or promotion to be delivered to a consumer. In the instant case, Ramer evidently discloses collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content. Tully is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of appraising consumer capabilities in the same or similar context. Since both collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content, as well as appraising consumer capabilities are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Ramer, as well as Tully would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Ramer / Tully.
Regarding Claims 14: Ramer discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Ramer further discloses:
wherein contributions generated by way of marketing or partner activities are used to reduce costs to users … {see at least [1139] – other third party ad providers; [1090] – a wireless provider or some third party; [0285] – reduce the cost of wireless services (reads on partner services). The claim element “used to reduce costs to users receiving healthcare monitoring and healthcare related benefits supported by way of the system” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
Ramer does not disclose, however, Tully discloses:
… receiving healthcare monitoring and healthcare related benefits supported by way of the system. {see at least [0005] – An individual with a chronic disease, including orphan diseases such as lysosomal storage disease, may be required to monitor various health parameters on a continuous basis in support of any treatment or therapy. The element “[users] receiving healthcare monitoring and healthcare related benefits supported by way of the system,” lacking any form or structure to distinguish it from any ordinary user, is considered mere labeling or at most nonfunctional printed matter (does not require any steps to be performed), and given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05; MPEP 2112.01 III; MPEP 2601.01 and the authorities therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Ramer to include the elements of Tully. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to better customize content and/or promotion to be delivered to a user. In the instant case, Ramer evidently discloses collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content. Tully is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of a user receiving health-care monitoring in the same or similar context. Since both collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content, as well as a user receiving health-care monitoring are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Ramer, as well as Tully would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Ramer / Tully.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramer et al (US 2011/0258049), in view of Kitfield et al (US 2013/0166313).
Regarding Claims 5: Ramer discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Ramer further discloses: further comprising one or more subsystems configured to {see at least fig1, rc102, [0464] – information about search query, … location of the mobile device … subscriber characteristics}
Ramer does not disclose, however, Kitfield discloses:
enable support to be provided to the consumers by administrators, friends, family, in-house support parties, or third party entities. {see at least [0215] – support features … from third party service providers}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Ramer to include the elements of Kitfield. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to satisfy consumer needs. In the instant case, Ramer evidently discloses collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content. Kitfield is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of support provided by third parties in the same or similar context. Since both collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content, as well as support provided by third parties are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Ramer, as well as Kitfield would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Ramer / Kitfield.
Regarding Claims 6: Ramer discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Ramer further discloses: further comprising one or more subsystems configured to {see at least fig1, rc102, [0464] – information about search query, … location of the mobile device … subscriber characteristics}
Ramer does not disclose, however, Kitfield discloses:
enable the consumers to share personal health-related sensory data with a remote healthcare service provider. {see at least [0212] – … send personal treatment data to different healthcare provider, who in turn might forward …; reads on enabling to share personal data}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Ramer to include the elements of Kitfield. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to satisfy consumer needs. In the instant case, Ramer evidently discloses collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content. Kitfield is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of sharing personal data in the same or similar context. Since both collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content, as well as sharing personal data are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Ramer, as well as Kitfield would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Ramer / Kitfield.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramer et al (US 2011/0258049), in view of Pham (US 2015/0081888).
Regarding Claims 9: Ramer discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Ramer does not disclose, however, Pham discloses: further comprising one or more subsystems to
configure the simplified human-device interface for each user. {see at least fig5, fig6, [0096]-[0017]; [0118] – interface designed for user with limited IT knowledge; reads on configuring the interface for the user}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Ramer to include the elements of Pham. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to adapt to user needs. In the instant case, Ramer evidently discloses collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content. Pham is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of customizing user display in the same or similar context. Since both collecting user data, analyzing it, selecting and displaying content, as well as customizing user display are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Ramer, as well as Pham would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Ramer / Pham.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180084308 A1 Lopatecki; Jason et al. DIGITAL AUDIOVISUAL CONTENT CAMPAIGNS USING MERGED TELEVISION VIEWER INFORMATION AND ONLINE ACTIVITY INFORMATION The present disclosure relates to a content campaign system that improves the design and implementation of content campaigns. In particular, the content campaign system can receive television viewer information corresponding to television client devices and online activity information corresponding to client computing devices. Further, the content campaign system can identify a correspondence between the television viewer information and the online activity information for individual users and/or households. Based on the correspondence, the content campaign system can automatically generate targeting parameters for audiovisual content campaigns. For example, the content campaign system can recommend audiovisual content (e.g., a television advertisement) to provide to a target audience of users via a television broadcast based on the correlated television viewer information and online activity information of a particular user.
US 20040025174 A1 Cerrato, Dean E. Method and system for the storage, viewing management, and delivery of targeted advertising A method for managing television advertisements. The method includes determining if a subscriber has reached a minimum level of advertisement viewing and curtailing the service level of the subscriber if the subscriber does not maintain the minimum level of advertisement viewing.
US 20160379279 A1 Ashery; Elie et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REAL-TIME AUTOMATED FORMATTING OF ADVERTISING CONTENT IN EMAIL PUBLICATIONS Disclosed are systems and methods for providing customized advertisements in electronic publications distributed by email, which advertisements have a look and feel matching the look and feel of non-advertisement content of the email electronic publication. The invention addresses the way in which customized electronic advertisements appear in electronic publications, and more particularly computer-implemented methods by which custom-selected electronic advertising data is reformatted in real-time for integration with an email electronic publication and displayed with a look and feel that matches the look and feel of the non-advertising content of the email electronic publication.
US 20100058381 A1 Begeja; Lee et al. Methods and Apparatus for Dynamic Construction of Personalized Content Systems and techniques for delivering custom created content to users. As programming content is delivered to a user, the content selected for delivery is continuously monitored. When a point is reached in the delivered content appropriate for delivery of custom created content such as an advertisement, stored user information is examined and analyzed to identify content to which the user is likely to be receptive. Customized content is constructed based on the identification, by collecting and organizing media objects, and the constructed content is placed in the content being delivered.
US 20130326554 A1 Shkedi; Roy Targeted television advertising based on a profile linked to an online device associated with a content-selecting device A profile provider: (i) associates a set of devices (including two or more online devices and possibly a set-top box); and (ii) delivers an advertisement targeted using profile information associated with one of the online devices. The advertisement is presented along with media content. If the media content is viewed using a single-viewer display, then profile information is used that is associated with an online device used to select or receive the media content. If the media content is viewed using a multiple-viewer display, then profile information is used that is associated with an online device used to select, receive, or present the media content or with an online device associated with one or more of those online devices.
US 20200286119 A1 Sullivan; Edward M. Methods, Systems and Media Platform for Increasing Advertisement Engagement with Users The present system, method, and media platform provides tools for increasing advertisement engagement with users by incentivizing engagement with various content displayed within a graphical user interface of a device by providing rewards for such engagement. Content engagement includes interacting with the displayed content or sharing such content on social media and the like, or by any other various action and/or input received from the user indicative of content engagement as defined in a set of parameters provided at least in part by the owners of the content. Content owners can purchase rewards which are selectively, as defined by parameters, distributed to one or more user rewards account upon receiving an input indicating a selection by the user of the content displayed. The user advantageously seeks out the content due, in part, to the rewards offer and relevance to the user's interests.
US 20110258049 A1 DOUGHTY D et al. Method for generating aggregate user profile provided as add-on service to advertising agency trade desk, involves aggregating mobile and offline profile data into user profile, and providing access to user profile to sponsors. The method involves receiving mobile profile data relating to user's use of a mobile communication facility (102). Offline profile data relating to user's interaction with a non-Internet-based entity is received. The mobile profile data and the offline profile data are aggregated into an aggregate user profile based on a verification datum. Access is provided to the aggregate user profile to a set of sponsors (128). Selection of an item of sponsored content is enabled to present to the user based on the aggregated user profile. The verification datum is selected from a group consisting of a match key, demographic data relating to user, hardware identifier, geolocation datum, a customer identifier, language and transaction data. The non-Internet-based entity is selected from a group consisting of a mailing catalog and a subscription service. Method for generating an aggregate user profile provided as an add-on service to an advertising agency trade desk (claimed). The method enables a mobile content provider to deliver sponsored content, advertisements and sponsored call numbers to the mobile communication facility based on relevance to a search query. The method enables the mobile content provider to select the sponsored content from a variety of sources/mobile content inventories using a monetization platform that acts as an advertising hub.
WO 2011123803 A1 KALYANAM K et al. System for managing treatment of orphan disease of patient, has communications module that communicates vacation information related to treatment of orphan disease with health care providers, pharmaceutical company and case manager The system has a data storage module that stores parameters related to the treatment of the orphan disease. A tracking module tracks the parameters related to the treatment of the orphan disease. A communications module communicates vacation information related to the treatment of the orphan disease with health care providers (103), pharmaceutical company (104) and case manager.
GB 2517740 A PHAM P Monitoring arrangement i.e. headless system, for monitoring e.g. wired connection between home network and Internet, has event recording module for storing record of data generated by modules, where record of data provides history of events. The arrangement (1) has a filtering module (7) for filtering content delivered to a device connected to a network and generates filtering data indicative of content filtered by the filtering module. A connectivity detection module (6) detects connectivity of a device connected to the network and generates connectivity data indicative of the connectivity of the device. An event recording module (10) stores a record of the data generated by the respective modules, where the record of data provides a history of events detected by the monitoring arrangement.
WO 2014145432 A2 ABU-SHAIKHA J et al. Treating patient to improve cognitive abilities, comprises administering augmenting agent, providing training protocol to stimulate neural activity, and recording administration data and training protocol data associated with patient Treating a patient to improve one or more cognitive abilities, comprises receiving (902) a visiting patient at a clinic, administering (906) an augmenting agent to the visiting patient, providing a training protocol to stimulate neural activity in the visiting patient, and recording augmenting agent administration data and training protocol data associated with the visiting patient.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698