DETAILED ACTION
The present application (Application No. 17/851,976), filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in reply to communications by Applicants responding to first office action on the merits, received 15 July, 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21, are amended. Claim 22, is new. Therefore, claims 1-22, are currently pending and addressed below.
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 the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-22, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, 15, as amended, recite the limitation: “generating, deterministically, a thumbnail (emphasis added) of the selected advertisement content”. It does not positively recite plural “thumbnails” or more than one thumbnail. Therefore, recitation of “wherein the deterministically generation consistently produces identical thumbnails for identical advertisement content regardless of which of the plurality of ADS the advertisement content is selected from” is vague.
It is noted, that the only mention of “thumbnail” and “frames” in the specification, is the disclosure in instant paragraph [055]: “The deterministic thumbnail picker may guarantee the generation of same thumbnails of the same video (e.g., select frames on 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90% of the video, etc.)” and figure 3 “304”.
This paragraph [055] does not disclose: “wherein the deterministically generation consistently produces identical thumbnails for identical advertisement content regardless of which of the plurality of ADS the advertisement content is selected from”. This added language is only expected results.
Appropriate clarification and correction are required. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: In the instant case, claims 1-7, 22, are directed to a method, claims 8-14, are directed to a system, and claims 15-21 are directed to a product, therefore the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A- Prong 1: Independent claim 1 comprises steps of: selecting advertisement content from one of a plurality of ADSs; determining, whether the selected advertisement content was previously sent to the user device within a time period based on a result of comparing the generated thumbnail to previous deterministically generated thumbnails of the selected advertisement content; determining a number of times that the selected advertisement content has been sent to the user device within the time period in response to determining that the selected advertisement content was previously sent to the user device; determining whether the number of times that the selected advertisement content has been sent to the user device within the time period exceeds a threshold value; and including the selected advertisement content in the video stream sent to the user device in response to determining that the number of times that the selected advertisement content has been sent to the user device within the time period does not exceed the threshold value.
All these steps, but for the use of generic computer components that execute them, are generic functions performed by general-purpose computers, which relate to concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements or opinions.
As now amended, the claim further comprises step of: generating deterministically a thumbnail of the selected advertisement content, wherein the deterministically generation consistently produces identical thumbnails for identical advertisement content regardless of which of the plurality of ADS the advertisement content is selected from, wherein a visual representation of the thumbnail is generated by extracting video frames at fixed percentages of a duration of the selected advertisement content;
The independent claims are directed to a method for dynamically including advertisements in the form of thumbnails in content sent to a user device. Accordingly, the claimed steps represent a method of organizing commercial interactions comprising advertising, marketing and sales activities, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping, wherein all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract idea of providing advertisements in the form of thumbnails on a user device display.
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar subject matter and the same subsequent analysis should be applied thereto.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Additional elements include: a processor in a server computing device deployed in a service provider network; plurality of advertisement decision services; user device; thumbnails, and extracting video frames at fixed percentages of a duration of the selected advertisement content.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the steps that they execute represent generic functions which can be performed by a general-purpose computer without any novel programming or improvement in the operation of the computer itself. These additional elements are merely invoked as tools to perform an abstract idea (mere instructions to apply the exception) as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
As already previously explained, the claimed steps merely implement a business strategy through conventional internet enabled communications and conventional computer functions. The claimed steps are not directed and do not teach technological improvements to “the performance and functioning of operator networks” or to the generation of thumbnails. The scope of the claimed invention is the provision of advertisements; it is not to improve the technology of operator networks.
The process of “integrating deterministic thumbnail generation and exposure tracking into a real-world content delivery environment” are steps directed to the abstract idea, and therefore the presumed improvements in “the reliability and scalability of advertisement tracking systems” derived from these steps are only improving the abstract idea. Likewise, the only mention of “frames” in the specification (presumably frames of video content), is the disclosure in instant paragraph [055] and figure 3, and any teaching of a “process of extracting video frames at fixed percentages and comparing those visual thumbnails to prior content enables dynamic exposure control at the user device level” that may be derived from this paragraph is at best, disclosed at a high level of generality.
Notwithstanding the fact that “thumbnails” have been used in the publishing industries long before the digital age, to describe a small illustration or sketch that gives a preview of a larger piece; “thumbnail” became the term for a small image preview of a larger image or file as early as in the 1980s with the rise of computers. It is therefore apparent, that a “deterministic” representation of “at least one content element of the selected content” in the form of thumbnails, is not a technological improvement.
Accordingly, the additional elements when the claim elements are viewed individually and as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Based on the reasoning provided under Step 2A- Prong 2, the claims under Step 2B do not recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea. At this point under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping scenario where all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract ideas, (or under the “Mental Processes” grouping scenario to those steps that apply), the analysis is terminated because the same analysis with respect to Step 2A Prong Two applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. That is, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the steps that they execute represent conventional functions which can be performed by a general-purpose computer without any improvement to the programming technique or improvement in the operation of the computer itself.
The dependent claims have been considered. Dependent claims narrow the abstract idea of selecting and presenting advertisements for placement in a user device. They only narrow the business logic, not technology. These dependent claims merely add limits to the underlying steps of collecting/tracking user data, analyzing data, making determinations/correlations, and displaying/presenting data.
When considered as a whole, the same analysis with respect to Step 2A Prong Two and step 2B, apply to these additional elements. They cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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 of this title, 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.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldering9975 et al. (US 2003/0149975) (hereinafter “Eldering9975”), in view of Whitton et al. (US 2020/0068236) (hereinafter “Whitton8236”), further in view of Lundstrom et al. (US 2008/0235090) (hereinafter “Lundstrom5090”), and further in view of Broxton et al. (US 9,760,631) (hereinafter “Broxton0631”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, 22,
Eldering9975 discloses:
(selecting, by a processor in a server computing device deployed in a service provider network, advertisement content from one of a plurality of advertisement decision services (ADSs) ) . Ad server representative of an ADS, and in particular a third-party ad server (a third party ADS) (see at least Eldering9975, fig. 5, ¶100, 119). According to one embodiment, the ad server 540 may select the ad content (“content” as claimed) with the help of a 3rd party 590 (doing ad targeting) by sending an ad request 544 and receiving an ad response 546 (see at least Eldering9975, fig. 5, ¶100, 119).
(method of dynamically including content in a video stream sent to a user device). Selecting targeted advertisements to be presented to subscribers along with selected video (a video stream) in a video on demand (VoD) system (see at least Eldering9975, abstract). The content may be video, audio, data, computer applications, or other content that would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art (see at least Eldering9975, ¶52).
Advertisement content and non-advertisement content (see at least Eldering9975, fig. 1, ¶50, 52).
Ad server as per above, representative of an ADS, comprising specific deterministic algorithms or functionality for selecting advertisement content (see at least Eldering9975, ¶52-55).
Eldering9975 further discloses:
The advertisers (or media buyers) may select their advertising campaign for VoD based on the number of times this subscriber/household has previously viewed these ads. For example, Coke may identify that they would like to place ads in all "I Love Lucy" episodes unless the subscriber/household has previously been provided with more than a certain number of Coke ads (i.e., 5) in a certain time frame (i.e., the last four hours) (within a time period). (see at least Eldering9975, fig. 5, ¶156).
The ad metadata 572 may be transmitted to the STB 510 at set intervals (i.e., once a day), each time the viewer interacts with the VoD portion of the EPG, each time the viewer selects a VoD (VoD request), each time the VoD content is updated, or other means that would be known to those of ordinary skill in the art. (see at least Eldering9975, fig. 5, ¶119).
The ad metadata 572 may be transmitted at fixed intervals, when all the ads defined in the ad metadata have been played and accordingly need to be replenished, for each VoD request or other methods that would be known to those of ordinary skill in the art (see at least Eldering9975, fig. 5, ¶157).
In some embodiments, the download carousel 525 may deliver ad metadata, ad queues, and possibly ads to the STB (see at least Eldering9975, fig. 5, ¶153).
Functionality for guarding against over saturating a subscriber with ad exposure (see at least Eldering9975, ¶162, “The ad queue may coordinate the display of the various different type of ads to enhance the ad message while also being careful not to over saturate the subscriber”, ¶182).
Memory constraints regarding storage of ad metadata (see at least Eldering9975, ¶83, 157). If the ad meta data 572 for all ads that are potentially available for each VoD request (complete list of ads capable of being selected) is to be transmitted to the STB 510 for the STB to compare to the subscriber profiles, the STB 510 likely will need to be a PVR as memory would be required to store the meta data 572 for the complete set of ads. (see at least Eldering9975, fig. 5, ¶157).
Eldering9975 does not expressly disclose the following limitations (although it teaches the individual elements):
(determining, by the processor in the server computing device deployed in the service provider network, whether the selected advertisement content was previously sent to the user device within a time period).
(determining a number of times that the selected advertisement content has been sent to the user device within the time period in response to determining that the selected advertisement content was previously sent to the user device).
(determining whether the number of times that the selected advertisement content has been sent to the user device within the time period exceeds a threshold value ).
(including, from the server, the selected advertisement content in the video stream sent to the user device in response to determining that the number of times that the selected advertisement content has been sent to the user device within the time period does not exceed the threshold value ).
However, as explained above, Eldering9975 teaches: Transmitting ad metadata 572 to the STB 510 (“sent” as claimed), according to plurality of possible rules, including temporal conditions (“within a time period” as claimed), or “other means that would be known to those of ordinary skill in the art”; and also teaches: Conditional rules for replenishing ad metadata, and mechanisms for guarding against over saturating the subscriber with the same ad(s); and also teaches: Conditional rules constraining display of a same ad more than a threshold number of times in a certain time frame; and also teaches: Memory constraints regarding storage of ad metadata.
Further, realizing that in a typical broadcast scenario, every ad queue or ad metadata that is/are sent to an STB is/are conceivably viewed by the subscriber, then it would be within the predictable knowledge and common sense skills of a person of ordinary skill in the digital advertising arts to apply in Eldering9975, similar conditional rules as they are applied to constraining viewership of one or more ads, also to the sending of ad queues or ad metadata to an STB, said conditional rules being instructions not to send and/or view a same ad more than a threshold number of times over a certain time frame (does not exceed the threshold value ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Eldering9975 in this way, since this modification addresses the same issue of guarding against over exposing the subscriber with the same ad, and against diluting the effectiveness of the ad, and maximizing memory resources. Moreover, this modification would have been obvious, since this would be a simple substitution of one known element or constraining scenario (i.e., constraints for “sending”) for another (i.e., constraints for “viewing”), to obtain the predictable result of guarding against over saturating the subscriber with the same ad.
Examiner’s note: For examining purposes, Eldering9975 as modified above to include constraints for sending, is hereinafter referred as “ModEldering9975”.
Eldering9975 does not disclose: (a plurality of ADSs).
As explained above, Eldering9975 teaches: Ad server representative of an ADS, comprising specific deterministic advertisement content selection algorithms (see at least Eldering9975, ¶52-55).
Whitton8236 discloses: One or more Ad Decision Services (ADSs) (see at least Whitton8236 , ¶5, 27, 41). A network operator (e.g., a multiple-system operator (MSO)) (see at least Whitton8236 , ¶7, 23). (a plurality of ADSs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the ADS of Eldering9975 and its specific deterministic ad selecting algorithm, to be modified with the plurality of ADSs of Whitton8236, to include in the combination a plurality of ADSs configured with the specific deterministic ad selecting algorithm of Eldering9975, since this would be a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the plurality of ADSs in Whitton8236) for another (i.e., the third party ADS of Eldering9975) to obtain the predictable result of broadening the sources of advertisement decision services.
Eldering9975 does not disclose:
(generating, deterministically, by the processor in the server computing device deployed in the service provider network, a thumbnail of the selected advertisement content).
(wherein the deterministically generation consistently produces identical thumbnails for identical advertisement content regardless of which of the plurality of ADS the advertisement content is selected from, wherein a visual representation of the thumbnail is generated by extracting video frames at fixed percentages of a duration of the selected advertisement content).
Compact prosecution note: The claims recite “generating, deterministically, a thumbnail of the selected advertisement content”. The claims do not positively recite thumbnails or more than one thumbnail. Therefore, recitation of “wherein the deterministically generation consistently produces identical thumbnails for identical advertisement content regardless of which of the plurality of ADS the advertisement content is selected from,” is expected results.
However, Lundstrom5090 discloses these limitations.
Lundstrom5090 discloses: An Advertising Application Server (ADS). The ADS detects that a user is present at the TV client and upon the detection receives preferences of said detected user. Also received in the ADS is information on advertisements in the Ad Providers Database. A matching is done in the ADS by use of the preferences and the available advertisements. From the matching one or more advertisements possible to show for the user are selected. (see at least Lundstrom5090, fig. 1, 6, ¶12, 32-33, 50).
Lundstrom5090 further discloses: Deterministic generation of thumbnails (see at least Lundstrom5090, fig. 3, ¶43, “The STB IPTV Client 103 is able to provide a user interface for interactivity such as the display of thumbnails each representing an advertisement”) (generating, deterministically, by the processor in the server computing device deployed in the service provider network, a thumbnail of the selected advertisement content), wherein Lundstrom’s explicit teaching: “each thumbnail representing an advertisement” is noted. Said differently, Lundstrom5090 specifically teaches that no two or more different thumbnails can represent a same advertisement (generation consistently produces identical thumbnails for identical advertisement content).
Each click on a thumbnail (the Ad has been viewed by the user) will result in a relevant SIP message send to the Ad AS 105 (in FIG. 1) triggering an update of the viewer preference information and invocation of a corresponding business transaction, such as payment to the Service Provider from the Ad Provider. The last and third column keeps the Ad interaction history. (see at least Lundstrom5090, fig. 3, ¶43).
(a visual representation of the selected content derived). Notwithstanding the fact that the taught feature in Lundstrom5090 of: display of thumbnails on a user interface, each thumbnail representing an advertisement, teaches “a visual representation”; Official Notice is further taken that the very definition of thumbnails “a small, reduced-size version of a larger image or video, used to help users quickly identify and manage a collection of images or videos” comprises a visual representation. The examiner is not aware of thumbnails that are not visual representations and neither the specification nor the applicant provides a definition of thumbnails that are not a visual representation. Accordingly, any teaching of a thumbnail is also a teaching of a visual representation.
Eldering9975 (and/or the above formulated Eldering9975/Whitton8236 combination) and Lundstrom5090, they are both directed to displaying advertisements to a user device based on advertisement identifiers, and therefore are analogous art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metadata of the deterministically selected advertisements of Eldering9975 with the advertisement thumbnails of Lundstrom5090, since this would be a simple substitution of one known deterministically obtained advertisement representation element (i.e. the advertisement thumbnail in Lundstrom5090) for another (i.e. the metadata of the deterministically obtained advertisement of Eldering9975), to obtain the predictable result of providing graphical advertisement identifiers.
The above combined system of Eldering9975 in view of Lundstrom5090 teaches: advertisement thumbnails; and ModEldering9975 teaches: conditional rules for sending (and/or viewing) a same advertisement no more than a threshold number of times over a certain time frame (determining whether the selected advertisement was previously sent to the user device within a time period);
but this combined system of Eldering9975/Lundstrom5090 (and/or ModEldering9975/Lundstrom5090) does not expressly disclose: (based on a result of comparing the generated thumbnail to previous deterministically generated thumbnails of the selected advertisement content).
However, Eldering9975 discloses: Tracking and storing historic user session data over a given period of time, and functionality for making determinations by comparing historic session data with current data (see at least Eldering9975, ¶55, 114-117). In addition, according to one embodiment, the STB 510 may select the ads itself by comparing ad metadata 572 to the subscriber profile (see at least Eldering9975, ¶119). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further implement comparing advertisement identifiers in the form of advertisement thumbnails into the combined system of Eldering9975/Lundstrom5090 (and/or ModEldering9975/Lundstrom5090), by applying the comparison functionality and the conditional rules of Eldering9975 (for sending a same advertisement no more than a threshold number of times over a certain time frame), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (conditional rules, and advertisement identifiers in the form of advertisement thumbnails, and comparison functionality), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and since the elements disclosed would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments without interfering with each other, it would be reasonable to conclude that the resulting combined teaching would be predictable. Moreover, this modification would have been obvious, since it would have further facilitated tracking a user’s interactions with the ads.
The above formulated Eldering9975/Whitton8236/ Lundstrom5090 combination does not specifically disclose: (wherein a visual representation of the thumbnail is generated by extracting video frames at fixed percentages of a duration of the selected advertisement content).
However, Broxton0631 discloses: Play-though graph 202 including a curve 204 that is graphically indicative of play-through rates for different segments of a video advertisement (different percentage portions of total duration of an advertisements) (fixed percentages of a duration of the selected advertisement content) (see at least Broxton0631, fig. 2, “202”, ¶8:9-53, see also ¶10:29-36, 10:53-11:2). Two or more of the frames of the video advertisement be sequentially presented in the video viewer 216 (fixed percentages of a duration of the selected advertisement content) (see at least Broxton0631, fig. 2, ¶11:26-44). Thumbnail from the video advertisement (a visual representation of the thumbnail) (see at least Broxton0631, ¶13:4-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to extract in Broxton0631 video frames at fixed percentages of a duration of the selected advertisement content, since given knowledge and functionality of advertisement duration data, percentage portions of total duration of an advertisements, and frames of the video advertisement, then extracting/presenting video frames at fixed percentages of a duration of the selected advertisement content is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need of using data of percentage portions of total duration of an advertisements to extract advertisement frames, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, this modification enables allocation of thumbnails along different portions of the advertisements as desired by the advertiser.
(claim 22) Moreover, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to extract in Broxton0631 video frames at fixed percentages of 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90%. , since given a teaching of “wherein a visual representation of the thumbnail is generated by extracting video frames at fixed percentages of a duration of the selected advertisement content”, then, extracting/presenting video frames at fixed percentages of 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90%, are some of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions, to the recognized need of extracting video frames at fixed percentages, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Examiner’s note: Regarding the limitation “wherein the fixed percentages are 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90%”. However, given a teaching of functionality in Broxton0631 for “extracting/presenting video frames at fixed percentages of a duration of the selected advertisement content”, little if any patentable weight may be granted to elements in the claim such as: specific fixed percentages are 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90%. A process, machine, or article shouldn’t change merely because the percentages may be the same or different. Two systems operating the same way with only differences in percentages would not be patentably distinct from one another. One skilled in the art would find it obvious to choose whichever percentages is desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Eldering9975/Whitton8236/Lundstrom5090 combination with Broxton0631, since this expansion is applying a known technique (the thumbnail allocation of Broxton0631), to improve a similar known technique (the thumbnail allocation in the Eldering9975/Whitton8236/ Lundstrom5090 combination), in the same way, wherein this improved functionality is a predictable result within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art, which would enable allocation of thumbnails along different portions of the advertisements as might be desired by the advertiser.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, Eldering9975 in view of Whitton8236, Lundstrom5090 and Broxton0631 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; claim 8; and claim 15; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
Eldering9975 does not disclose: (including different advertisement content in the video stream sent to the user device in response to determining that the number of times that the selected advertisement content has been sent to the user device within the time period exceeds the threshold value). However, since Eldering9975 teaches that when an advertisement (ad #1) is not the most applicable it needs to be replaced with a new ad (see Eldering9975, ¶163), and modEldering9975 further teaches conditional rules for sending (and/or viewing) a same advertisement no more than a threshold number of times over a certain time frame, then it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a different advertisement in the content sent the user device in response to determining that the number of times that the selected advertisement has been sent to the user device within the time period exceeds the threshold value, since conditional rules for sending (and/or viewing) a same advertisement no more than a threshold number of times over a certain time frame is one of a finite number of predictable mechanisms (a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions) to the recognized need of including a new ad when the ad queue determines that ad #1 is not the most applicable, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, Eldering9975 in view of Whitton8236, Lundstrom5090 and Broxton0631 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; claim 8; and claim 15; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
Eldering9975 does not disclose: (forgoing including the selected advertisement content in the video stream sent to the user device in response to determining that the number of times that the selected advertisement content has been sent to the user device within the time period exceeds the threshold value). However, since Eldering9975 teaches that when an advertisement (ad #1) is not the most applicable it needs to be forgone (“forgoing” as claimed) and replaced with a new ad (see Eldering9975, ¶163), and modEldering9975 further teaches conditional rules for sending (and/or viewing) a same advertisement no more than a threshold number of times over a certain time frame, then it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include forgoing including the selected advertisement in the content sent to the user device in response to determining that the number of times that the selected advertisement has been sent to the user device within the time period exceeds the threshold value, since conditional rules for sending (and/or viewing) a same advertisement no more than a threshold number of times over a certain time frame is one of a finite number of predictable mechanisms (a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions) to the recognized need of including a new ad when the ad queue determines that ad #1 is not the most applicable, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Eldering9975 in view of Whitton8236, Lundstrom5090 and Broxton0631 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; claim 8; and claim 15; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
As explained in the rejection of the parent claims, the combination of Eldering9975 in view of Whitton8236 and Lundstrom5090 teaches: (wherein selecting advertisement content from the one of a plurality of ADSs comprises selecting a targeted advertisement content from the one of a plurality of ADSs).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, Eldering9975 in view of Whitton8236, Lundstrom5090 and Broxton0631 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; claim 8; and claim 15; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
As explained in the rejection of the parent claims, Eldering9975 further teaches: (third-party ADS advertisement content); and the combination of Eldering9975 in view of Lundstrom5090 teaches: (wherein generating, deterministically, a thumbnail the selected advertisement content comprises: generating, deterministically, at least one thumbnail for an operator ADS advertisement content).
The combination of Eldering9975 in view of Lundstrom5090 does not disclose: (generating, deterministically, at least one thumbnail for a third-party ADS advertisement content). Yet, Eldering9975 teaches: (see at least Eldering9975, fig. 5, ¶140, “Alternatively, the service provider could query the 3rd party database to see if the subscriber meets the criteria. Alternatively, the service provider may send ad metadata 572 and an identifier for the subscriber to the third party 590 and allow the third party 590 to respond with ads that meet the criteria defined in the ad metadata.”); wherein it could be argued that a service provider ADS (a network operator ADS) (an operator ADS) might be implicit.
However, in any event, Whitton8236 discloses: (an operator ADS) (see at least Whitton8236 , fig. 1, ¶5, 23, 27, 34-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further expand the thumbnail for a third-party ADS advertisement in the combined system of Eldering9975, Lundstrom5090 and Whitton8236, further in view of Whitton8236 to include an operator ADS. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to expand the thumbnail for a third-party ADS advertisement methodology of the combined system of Eldering9975, Lundstrom5090 and Whitton8236 in this way, since doing so is applying a known technique (implementing an operator ADS advertisement) to improve a similar method (implementing thumbnail for a third-party ADS advertisement) in the same way, wherein this improved functionality is a predictable result within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, this expansion would have been obvious, since it provides better control of advertisement resources and possible faster latency due to local server, wherein doing so is a mere matter of business choice and the skilled person would easily implement the approach which suits best the given circumstances and business requirements, without exercising any inventive skill.
Regarding claims 7, 14, 21, Eldering9975 in view of Whitton8236, Lundstrom5090 and Broxton0631 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claims 1 and 6; claims 8 and 13; and claims 15 and 20; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
Eldering9975 does not disclose: (wherein comparing the generated thumbnail to the previous deterministically generated thumbnails to determine whether the selected advertisement content was previously sent to the user device within the time period comprises comparing the generated thumbnail to the previous deterministically generated thumbnails to determine whether the selected advertisement content was previously sent to the user device within the time period independently of whether the selected advertisement content originated locally in the service provider network or externally from a third-party system).
However, the rejection of claims 6, 13 and 20 (not repeated here) explains how expanding the thumbnail for a third-party ADS advertisement in the combined system of Eldering9975, Lundstrom5090 and Whitton8236 to also include an operator ADS advertisement, results in an improved ADS system implementation.
Further, since each ADS type: third party ADS or operator ADS would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, without interfering with each other, it would be reasonable to conclude that the resulting combined teaching would be predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement selecting an advertisement previously sent to the user device within the time period independently of whether the selected advertisement originated locally in the service provider network or externally from a third-party system.
Claims 4, 11, 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldering9975 et al. (US 2003/0149975) (hereinafter “Eldering9975”), in view of Whitton et al. (US 2020/0068236) (hereinafter “Whitton8236”), further in view of Lundstrom et al. (US 2008/0235090) (hereinafter “Lundstrom5090”), further in view of Broxton et al. (US 9,760,631) (hereinafter “Broxton0631”), and further in view of Shkedi et al. (US 2014/0189732) (hereinafter “Shkedi9732”).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Eldering9975 in view of Whitton8236, Lundstrom5090 and Broxton0631 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; claim 8; and claim 15; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
Eldering9975 does not disclose: (determining a geolocation of the user device, wherein selecting advertisement content from one of a plurality of ADSs comprises selecting the advertisement content based on the determined geolocation of the user device).
However Shkedi9732 discloses: (see Shkedi9732, abstract, “A profile provider: (i) associates a primary online device (OD1) with a set-top box (STB); (ii) a location of OD1 at some point in time is estimated to be "near" the STB, thereby establishing a STB proxy location; (iii) one or more secondary online devices (OD2s) are observed to be located "near" the STB proxy location and are associated with the STB; and (iv) a television advertisement is selected to be directed to the STB, which selection is based at least in part on profile information linked to one of the associated OD2s. The method can be particularly advantageous in situations wherein: the STB is not connected to any computer network; the STB is not ever connected to the same local area network as OD1 or OD2; or television service (used by the STB) and online access (used by OD1 and OD2s) are provided by different service providers.”, ¶52).
Per above, the combination of Eldering9975 in view of Lundstrom5090 teaches a “base” method (device, method or product) for transmitting targeted advertisements to a STB subscriber, and Shkedi9732 teaches a “comparable” method for transmitting targeted advertisements to a STB subscriber, which offers the improvement of geo-location targeting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Eldering9975 in view of Lundstrom5090, further in view of Shkedi9732. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to modify in this way, since doing so is applying a known technique (implementing geo-location targeting) to improve a similar method (transmitting targeted advertisements to a STB subscriber) in the same way, wherein this improved functionality is a predictable result within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art, as per KSR rationale C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2025 have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues:
The Office Action asserts that there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicants respectfully traverse this assertion. The present claims improve the reliability and scalability of advertisement tracking systems by integrating deterministic thumbnail generation and exposure tracking into a real-world content delivery environment.
The process of extracting video frames at fixed percentages and comparing those visual thumbnails to prior content enables dynamic exposure control at the user device level. This ensures compliance with frequency caps and improves the user experience by reducing repetitive advertisement delivery. As explained in para [0024], the solution recited in the claims overcomes prior system deficiencies by using a thumbnail algorithm to generate consistent thumbnails for determining exposure counts, and as detailed in para [0055], it uses a deterministic thumbnail picker selecting frames at 10%, 30%, 50%, etc., of content duration.
This functionality cannot be implemented by hand or through abstract mental reasoning. Instead, it reflects an integration of image processing, video segmentation, and content stream management into a coordinated and practical server-side application.
In response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The crux of the instant specification and of the claimed invention is advertising methods and systems, and more particularly, methods and systems of dynamically including advertisements in content sent to a user device. By virtue of the claimed invention being directed to advertising methods and systems, the claims fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping, wherein all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract idea of providing advertisements in the form of thumbnails on a user device display.
As already previously explained, the claimed steps merely implement a business strategy through conventional internet enabled communications and conventional computer functions. The claimed steps are not directed and do not teach technological improvements to “the performance and functioning of operator networks” or to the generation of thumbnails. The scope of the claimed invention is the provision of advertisements; it is not to improve the technology of operator networks.
The process of “integrating deterministic thumbnail generation and exposure tracking into a real-world content delivery environment” are steps directed to the abstract idea, and therefore the presumed improvements in “the reliability and scalability of advertisement tracking systems” derived from these steps are only improving the abstract idea. Likewise, the only mention of “frames” in the specification (presumably frames of video content), is the disclosure in instant paragraph [055] and figure 3, and any teaching of a “process of extracting video frames at fixed percentages and comparing those visual thumbnails to prior content enables dynamic exposure control at the user device level” that may be derived from this paragraph is at best, disclosed at a high level of generality.
Accordingly, the additional elements when the claim elements are viewed individually and as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The limitation of particular percentages of content ( “selecting frames at 10%, 30%, 50%, etc., of content duration”) is nonfunctional descriptive material, which does not make the claims eligible.
35 U.S.C. 103
New grounds of rejection are presented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO IOSIF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7785. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Wed, 9:00am-4:00pm teleworking.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on 571-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mario C. Iosif/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621