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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 4, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed June 4, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn at least because the cited references do not teach the HTML offsets or the claimed preference hierarchy. Please see below for the new rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts the claims recite an improvement because conventional system are passive nature and do not provide feedback. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion pervasive because an improvement in the abstract is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a) (discussing Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG). That is, gathering feedback on advertisements is an improvement in advertising processes and not an improvement in a technology.
Second, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the claims recite technical operations on the structure of a computerized message. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Examiner finds the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use and no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Please see below for the complete analysis of the claims as amended.
Third, Applicant asserts the recited network request is not generic data transmission. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a network request is still only one computer sending data, requesting data from another computer.
Fourth, Applicant asserts the hierarchal structure is not generic data storage. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the hierarchal structure is still storing data in an organized manner which is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Fifth, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because named entity recognition is not a general link to a field of use but is integral to the claims. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the claims recite using named entity recognition to identify objects in text which is what named entity recognition is used for. Thus, Examiner finds the use of named entity recognition is claimed too broadly and generally to be more than a general link to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Sixth, Applicant asserts the claims recite an improvement, citing Carmody and Desjardins. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion pervasive because an improvement in the abstract is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a) (discussing Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG). That is, gathering feedback on advertisements in an organized manner is an improvement in advertising processes and not an improvement in a technology.
Seventh, Applicant asserts the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the previously cited references do not teach the claims. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the 35 USC 101 analysis does not involve the considerations under 35 USC 103. Accordingly, the 101 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding the independent claims, claims 1, 9, and 16 recites the limitation "the network request". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Accordingly claims 1, 9, and 16 are rejected as indefinite. Claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 do not clarify this issue and accordingly are rejected due to their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-8 are directed to a process; and claims 9-20 are directed to a machine. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claims recite an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…identifying an object included in a message addressed to a user by executing a named entity recognition (NER) routine, the object comprising an entity identified within text content of a body of the message, the body of the message comprising an HTML string, the entity identified by a position offset within the HTML string;
inserting an explicit feedback control in the message inline with the text content and adjacent to the entity by analyzing the body of the message using entity extraction to identify the entity and inserting a feedback widget in the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity, the inserting comprising inserting, into the HTML string at the position offset, a self-contained web component that encapsulates an identifier of the identified entity, the explicit feedback control associated with the object and comprising interactive elements configured to capture user sentiment regarding the identified entity;
transmitting the message including the explicit feedback control to a client device of the user;
receiving the network request from the self-contained web component, the network request comprising the identifier of the identified entity and the feedback value representing feedback from the user in response to an interaction of the user with the explicit feedback control; and
updating a feedback model based on the received feedback, wherein the feedback model stores user preferences for identified entities in a hierarchical structure that organizes the identified entities at a plurality of hierarchical levels, the feedback model correlates user preferences with identified entities at the plurality of hierarchical levels and is used to filter future messages containing similar entities before delivery to the user.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) because these limitations essentially encompass providing an opportunity for customer to give feedback on products, services, etc., receiving feedback from the customers, and using the feedback to choose future messages. That is, these limitations essentially encompass gathering and using customer feedback (i.e. assessing customer satisfaction or performing market research) which is a part of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors because assessing customer satisfaction or performing market research are marketing or sales activities. Claims 1, 9, and 16 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The independent claims recite an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…identifying an object included in a message addressed to a user by executing a named entity recognition (NER) routine, the object comprising an entity identified within text content of a body of the message, the body of the message comprising an HTML string, the entity identified by a position offset within the HTML string;
inserting an explicit feedback control in the message inline with the text content and adjacent to the entity by analyzing the body of the message using entity extraction to identify the entity and inserting a feedback widget in the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity, the inserting comprising inserting, into the HTML string at the position offset, a self-contained web component that encapsulates an identifier of the identified entity, the explicit feedback control associated with the object and comprising interactive elements configured to capture user sentiment regarding the identified entity;
transmitting the message including the explicit feedback control to a client device of the user;
receiving the network request from the self-contained web component, the network request comprising the identifier of the identified entity and the feedback value representing feedback from the user in response to an interaction of the user with the explicit feedback control; and
updating a feedback model based on the received feedback, wherein the feedback model stores user preferences for identified entities in a hierarchical structure that organizes the identified entities at a plurality of hierarchical levels, the feedback model correlates user preferences with identified entities at the plurality of hierarchical levels and is used to filter future messages containing similar entities before delivery to the user.
These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of using named entity recognition and entity extraction, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., information extraction) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Second, the additional elements of the message comprising an entity identified in an HTML string and inserting a feedback web component into an HTML string, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., web browser design) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Third, the additional elements of inserting the explicit feedback control including interactive elements, transmitting the message, and receiving the network request from the user interaction with the explicit feedback control, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of sending and receiving data (i.e., displaying a user interface with interactive elements for sending and receiving data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Fourth, the additional elements storing the user preferences in a plurality of hierarchical levels, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of storing data (e.g., storing data in an organized fashion), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 further recite: a processor performing the various steps; a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium"; and "a processor; and a storage medium", respectively. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, claims 1, 9 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than a general link to a field of use and mere instructions to apply the exception. A general link to a field of use and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 9 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the object being one of the listed alternatives (e.g. text) is still a part of gathering customer feedback or conducting market research. That is, identifying text in a message for receiving feedback on is still a part of gathering customer feedback or conducting market research (e.g., seeking feedback on a customer support message or an offer).
Claims 3 and 10 recite the additional elements of using NER to identify the object. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (NER) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 4 and 11 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the feedback including positive and negative options is still a part of gathering customer feedback or conducting market research.
Further the additional elements of the positive and negative feedback being control buttons, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generic computer functions (e.g. generic interface for receiving user input).
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 18 recite updating the model and storing the user preferences and feedback. These additional elements, as claimed under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass storing the feedback for use in modelling which, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of storing data (i.e. storing user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 19, and 20 recite editing and filtering future messages based on the received feedback. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea because these additional elements are only using software to tailor information and provide it to a user, which is not more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pujara US Pub. No. 2008/0300972, herein referred to as “Pujara”, in view of Bingham et al, US Pub. No. 2023/0024204, herein referred to as “Bingham”, further in view of Odobetskiy et al, US Pub. No. 2022/0237237, herein referred to as “Odobetskiy”; further in view of Maze, US Pub. No. 2007/0255731, herein referred to as “Maze”.
Regarding claim 1, Pujara teaches:
identifying an object included in a message addressed to a user (advertisements are displayed in various areas of the screen, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5),
the body of the message comprising an HTML string (advertises use Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), ¶[0006]),
inserting an explicit feedback control in the message inline with the text content and adjacent to the entity by modifying the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity the explicit feedback control associated with the object (adds user rating indicator next to and inline with message, ¶¶[0044], [0046] and Fig. 5, ref. char. 542);
and inserting a feedback widget in the message to integrate the explicit feedback control (adds user rating indicator next to the message, ¶¶[0044], [0046] and Fig. 5, ref. char. 542);
and comprising interactive elements configured to capture user sentiment regarding the identified entity (user rating indicator allows users to click on thumbs up or down symbol or star symbol, ¶¶[0044], [0046] and Fig. 5);
the inserting comprising inserting, into the HTML string, a self-contained web component that encapsulates an identifier of the identified entity (adds user rating indicator next to and inline with message, ¶¶[0044], [0046] and Fig. 5, ref. char. 542; see also ¶[0006] discussing HTML),
transmitting, by the processor, the message including the explicit feedback control to a client device of the user (displays advertisements with rating ability, ¶¶[0044], [0050], and Figs. 6-8);
receiving, by the processor, the network request from the self-contained web component, the network request comprising the identifier of the identified entity and the feedback value representing feedback from the user in response to an interaction of the user with the explicit feedback control (sends information representative of the user's selected rating to a server for collection and processing, ¶[0046]; see also ¶[0043] discussing web communication);
and updating, by the processor, a feedback model based on the received feedback, wherein the feedback model stores user preferences for identified entities, wherein the feedback model correlates user preferences and is used to filter future messages containing similar entities before delivery to the user (uses data collected from the user to filter advertisements and find relevant ads, ¶[0043]; see also ¶[0034] discussing storing user data).
However Pujara does not teach but Bingham does teach:
identifying, by a processor executing a named entity recognition (NER) routine, an object included in a message addressed to a user (analyzes body of email using entity extraction, ¶[0024]; see also ¶¶[0025], [0031] discussing processor)
the object comprising an entity identified within text content of a body of the message (identifies various parts of the email including text in the body, ¶[0035]; see also ¶[0024] discussing entity extraction);
inserting an explicit feedback control in the message by modifying the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity (inserts feedback widget in email, ¶[0045])
user preferences with identified entities in a hierarchical structure (recipient profiles define the authority level of the recipient, existing relationships between the recipient and the enterprise entities, ¶¶[0021], [0045])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring of Pujara with the email widgets of Bingham because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Pujara may not only be interested in providing feedback and may be interested in more functionalities in an email and accordingly would have modified Bingham to include more functionalities, e.g. those taught in Bingham.
However the combination of Pujara and Bingham does not teach but Odobetskiy does teach:
analyzing the body of the message using entity extraction to identify the entity and inserting a feedback widget in the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity (uses named-entity recognition (NER) techniques to locate organization names, tradeable objects, etc. that are mentioned in the text of the document, ¶[0072], and adds user interface elements for actions corresponding to the tradeable objects, ¶[0075]; see also Fig. 3 summarizing process; and ¶¶[0073], [0074] discussing associated process),
the inserting comprising inserting a self-contained web component that encapsulates an identifier of the identified entity (adds user interface elements for actions corresponding to the tradeable objects, ¶[0075]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring with email widgets of Pujara and Bingham with the insertion of user interface elements based on related text because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Pujara and Bingham may want to automatically add feedback opportunities whenever certain concepts appear in advertisements and accordingly would have modified Pujara and Bingham to detect and these concepts and add user interface elements when these concepts appear, e.g., as taught by Odobetskiy.
However the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy does not teach but Maze does teach:
the body of the message comprising an HTML string, the entity identified by a position offset within the HTML string (identifies word using offset, ¶¶[0035], [0059]);
stores identified entities in a hierarchical structure that organizes the identified entities at a plurality of hierarchical levels, identified entities at the plurality of hierarchical levels (creates a hierarchical taxonomy of keywords for user, e.g. ¶¶[0049], [0067], [0074]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring based on user preferences with email widgets of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy with the taxonomies of Maze because Maze suggests using taxonomies to improve ease in accessing the data and extracting relevant information, ¶¶[0007]-[0008]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pujara, Bingham, Odobetskiy and Maze teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Pujara further teaches:
wherein the object comprises one of text, audio, video, or graphical content (advertisements are textual and graphical, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Pujara, Bingham, Odobetskiy and Maze teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Bingham further teaches:
wherein identifying an object include in a message comprises identifying the object using a named entity recognition (NER) routine (uses entity extraction, ¶[0024]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring of Pujara with the email widgets of Bingham because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Pujara may not only be interested in providing feedback and may be interested in more functionalities in an email and accordingly would have modified Bingham to include more functionalities, e.g. those taught in Bingham.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pujara, Bingham, Odobetskiy and Maze teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Pujara further teaches:
wherein the explicit feedback control comprises a positive feedback control button and a negative feedback control button (rating indicators includes thumbs up and thumbs down, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pujara, Bingham, Odobetskiy and Maze teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Pujara further teaches:
updating a feedback model based on the feedback from the user (future advertisements are based on feedback data collected, ¶¶[0016], [0062]; see also ¶¶[0035], [0054] discussing scoring relevancy),
the feedback model storing preferences of the user with respect to objects identified in messages addressed to the user (records user activity like which advertisement the user rated, what the rating is, and any additional feedback relating to the advertisement and/or the web page the use, ¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Pujara, Bingham, Odobetskiy and Maze teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and Pujara further teaches:
updating the explicit feedback control based on previous feedback of the user with respect to the object, the previous feedback stored in the feedback model (records user activity like which advertisement the user rated, what the rating is, and any additional feedback relating to the advertisement and/or the web page the use, ¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Pujara, Bingham, Odobetskiy and Maze teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and Pujara further teaches:
receiving, by the processor, a third message addressed to a user (ad server provides relevant ads, ¶[0042]);
identifying, by the processor, a third object included in the third message (advertisements are displayed in various areas of the screen, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5);
reading, by the processor, a user preference for the third object using the feedback model; and filtering, by the processor, the third message based on the user preference (filters advertisements using data collected on the user to find relevant ads, ¶[0043]; see also ¶[0054] and Fig. 7 discussing displaying ads based on user relevancy data).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, claims 9 and 16 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and further recite a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for tangibly storing computer program instructions” and “a processor; and a storage medium for tangibly storing thereon logic” which are taught by Bingham in e.g. ¶¶[0027], [0029], [0031]. Accordingly claims 9 and 16 are rejected for similar reason as claim 1.
Regarding claims 10-13, 15, 17, 18, and 20, claims 10-13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 recite similar limitations as claims 3-6 and 8 and accordingly are rejected for similar reasons as claims 3-6 and 8.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy in view of Kannan et al, US Pub. No. 2017/0364930, herein referred to as “Kannan”.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pujara, Bingham, Odobetskiy and Maze teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and Pujara further teaches:
receiving, by the processor, a second message from a sender, the second message received prior to delivery to the user (ad server provides relevant ads, ¶[0042]);
identifying, by the processor, a second object included in the second message addressed to a user (advertisements are displayed in various areas of the screen, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5);
However the combination of Pujara, Bingham, Odobetskiy and Maze does not teach but Kannan does teach:
reading, by the processor, a user preference for the second object using the feedback model; and providing, by the processor, at least one suggestion regarding how to edit the second message to the sender (makes various recommendations like recommending similar products when a product desired by the customer is out of stock, recommending a style of conversation to the agent during an interaction, presenting a different set of productivity or visual widgets to agents with specific persona types on the agent interaction platform, etc. ¶¶[0058]-[0059]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring with the email widgets of Pujara, Bingham, Odobetskiy and Maze with the recommendations of Kannan because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the feedback received in Pujara would also be useful for identifying recommendations for alternative products or styles of interactions, as taught by Kannan, and accordingly would have modified Pujara to make the recommendations.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, claims 14 and 19 recite similar limitations as claim 7 and accordingly are rejected for similar reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Roundtree et al, US Pub. No. 2014/0278992 teaches a similar method of assessing ads
Goldston et al, US Pub. No. 2021/0224362 teaches a similar method of assessing media
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 11-7.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
