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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 3/30/2026.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 12-13, 16, 19-22 are presented for examination.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1-2, 5, 8, 21-22 are method, claims 12, 13, 16, 19 are apparatus/system, and claim 20 is a computer readable medium. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 US.C. §101. However, claims 1-2, 5, 8, 12-13, 16, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite a method of obtaining a client tolerance profile for a client; obtaining content information corresponding to the segmented non-advertisement content, the content information comprising at least one of script information, caption information, transcript information;
obtaining risk level information associated with the segmented non-advertisement content to identify potential brand safety concerns to be included in the risk level information, wherein the segmented non-advertisement content comprises a plurality of non-advertisement segments, each of the non-advertisement segments having a time duration shorter than a time duration of the non-advertisement content, and wherein each non- advertisement segment of the plurality of non-advertisement segments is assigned a corresponding risk level;
generating, a contextual decision, suitability ratings associated with one or more non-advertisement segments of the plurality of non-advertisement segments based on the client tolerance profile, the content information and the corresponding risk level information, wherein generating the suitability ratings comprises determining, via the contextual decision, whether the one or more non-advertisement segments are acceptable to the client based on the client tolerance profile, the risk level information, and the at least one of the script information, the caption information, the transcript information, or the audio file information,
wherein determining whether the one or more non-advertisement segments are acceptable to the client further comprises determining whether the one or more non-advertisement segments of the segmented non-advertisement content are separated from an advertisement slot by a spacing greater than or equal to a time threshold;
in response to determining that the one or more non-advertisement segments are separated from the advertisement slot by the spacing, identifying the advertisement slot as being sufficiently spaced from the one or more non-advertisement segments, such that running an advertisement in the advertisement slot occurs at least the time threshold away from playback of the one or more non-advertisement segments;
storing the suitability ratings in the technical footprint structured representation, the structured representation comprising identifiers corresponding to respective non-advertisement segments and associated temporal information, such that the structured representation comprises identifiers for the one or more non-advertisement segments and the corresponding suitability rating for each segment of the one or more non-advertisement segments as related to the client; and
updating included in the contextual decision , an advertisement inventory associated with the client based on the generated suitability ratings and the one or more non-advertisement segments determined to be acceptable, wherein updating the advertisement inventory comprises providing, to the advertisement inventory , the identifiers corresponding to each of the one or more non- advertisement segments determined to be acceptable, and autonomously determining an increase in a number of advertisement slots available to the client based on the suitability ratings and the one or more non-advertisement segments determined to be acceptable.
generating one or more suitability ratings, the method comprising (claim 1): obtaining a client tolerance profile for a client; obtaining risk level information associated with content corresponding to the content information; and generating suitability ratings associated with the content based on the client tolerance profile and the risk level information (claim 1, 12, and 20). The limitation falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Specifically, Additionally, the limitation falls within mental processes as the steps of obtaining and generating could be done by the human mind.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of content information based machine learning model or artificial intelligence AI model (claims 1, 12 and 20) and apparatus for generating one or more suitability ratings, the apparatus comprising: a network communication unit configured to transmit and receive data; audio file, one or more controllers configured to; decision engine, learning model or artificial intelligence, updating of the database by storing data/suitable ratings in the technical footprint structured, updating via an application programming interface (API) ;(claim 12); a machine-readable non-transitory medium having stored thereon machine-executable instructions for generating one or more suitability ratings, the instructions comprising (claim 20). The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components — MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of “to transmit and receive data” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception by providing data in the form of transmitting and receiving information (i.e. data gathering) - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The claimed machines are not particular, and the claim as a whole monopolizes the abstract idea of optimizing the selection of content for a client.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of a network communication unit configured to transmit and receive data; audio file, one or more controllers configured to; decision engine, learning model or artificial intelligence, updating of the database by storing data/suitable ratings in the technical footprint structured, updating via an application programming interface (API) of Step 2A has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification (paragraph 0062-78) does not provide any indication that the receiving and storing of the data structure in the repository is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Versata Dev. Group court decision (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere storing and retrieving of information in a memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to the dependent claims:
The method of claim 2, wherein obtaining the client tolerance profile comprises obtaining at least one tolerance threshold with respect to one or more categories of a Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) framework. The limitation merely further limits the profile data which is part of the abstract idea and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The method of claim 5, wherein the risk level information comprises a low risk rating, a medium risk rating, or a high-risk rating for one or more segments of the content. The limitation merely further limits the suitability ratings data which is part of the abstract idea and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The method of claim 8, wherein the suitability ratings indicate a suitability of the one or more segments of the content to the client, and the suitability ratings are associated with a client identifier identifying the client. The limitation merely further limits the suitability ratings data which is part of the abstract idea and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The method of claim 9, further comprising storing the suitability ratings in a table, array, or another data object, wherein the table comprises identifiers for one or more segments of content and the corresponding suitability rating foreach segment of the one or more segments as related to the client. The limitation merely further limits the suitability ratings data which is part of the abstract idea and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The method of claim 21, further comprising machine learning model or the AI model generates the risk level information based on a keyword search. The limitation merely further limits the suitability ratings data which is part of the abstract idea and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The method of claim 22, further comprising the number of advertisement slots available to the client based on the suitability ratings is greater than a number of advertisement slots available to the client based on the risk level information associated with the non-advertisement content. The limitation merely further limits the suitability ratings data which is part of the abstract idea and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The method of claim 23, further comprising determining whether the one or more non-advertisement segments of the non- advertisement content are acceptable to the client comprises determining whether the one or more non-advertisement segments of the non-advertisement content are separated from an advertisement slot by a spacing greater than or equal to a time threshold; and in response to determining that the one or more non-advertisement segments are separated from the advertisement slot by the spacing, identifying the advertisement slot as being sufficiently spaced from the one or more non-advertisement segments, such that running an advertisement in the advertisement slot occurs at least the time threshold away from playback of the one or more non-advertisement segments. The limitation merely further limits the suitability ratings data which is part of the abstract idea and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 13, 16, 19 and 24 also recite parallel language as recited above and are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12-13, 16 and 19-24 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The references alone or in combination fail to teach “updating the advertisement inventory database comprises determining an increase in a number of advertisement slots available to the client based on the suitability ratings”. The combination of Luttrell, Hsu and Bucket teach on paragraph 0124 of Bucket “optimal inventory allocation is based on the amount of available inventory found at step 208. However, if the system determines that there is insufficient available inventory for the proposed ad placements, the system will prompt the user with the option to increase the rates of each ad placement at step 214. Bucket does not disclose determining an increase in the number of time slots, rather Becket discloses an increase in rates, prices. Therefore, the combination of Luttrell, Becket does not disclose or suggest “updating the advertisement inventory database comprises determining an increase in a number of advertisement slots available to the client based on the suitable ratings”.
CN 108960901 Zhao teaches estimated click rate of advertisement by click prediction model estimation is higher, the release effect of the advertisement is better. selecting predicted higher click rate of the advertisement placement can improve the advertisement release effect. Nevertheless, it lacks “updating the advertisement inventory database comprises determining an increase in a number of advertisement slots available to the client based on the suitable ratings”.
Other references of record:
The article titled "World Federation of Advertisers" https://web.archive.org/web/20210515233 52/https://wfanet.org/leadership/garm/about-garm) teaches discloses that the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) is a known framework which was established to address the challenge in harmful content on digital media platforms and its monetization via advertising (see page 4). The article alone or in combination fails to teach the details of time thresholds for determining whether one or more non-advertisement segments are sufficiently separated from an advertisement slot and therefore alone or in combination fail to teach the limitations of the claims.
Sahasrabudhe teaches: further comprising storing the suitability ratings in a table, array, or another data object, wherein the table comprises identifiers from or more segments of content and the corresponding suitability rating foreach segment of the one or more segments as related to the client (shown in Figures 4-5), the refence alone or in combination fails to teach the details of time thresholds for determining whether one or more non-advertisement segments are sufficiently separated from an advertisement slot and therefore alone or in combination fail to teach the limitations of claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because according to Applicant the claims are directed to a specific technological process for controlling advertisement execution relative to media playback using structured segment level analysis of media content, and according to Applicant the claims are directed to controlling advertisement placement within a media delivery system using temporal and contextual constraints, which is a technical process. The Examiner wants to point out that the claims as drafted and as disclosed in the specification are concern with the problem and solution of identifying ad opportunities using contextual characteristics like tone, sentiment, and risk while respecting an advertiser’s tolerance. The application also addresses the need to improve trust with advertiser partners and make ad inventory more valuable. The claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover advertisement, marketing placement/insertion timing and fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing human activity”, under step 2A, prong one. The media playback is not disclosed in the specification or the claims how it operates or control beyond its ordinary capacity.
With respect to Applicants arguments, pertaining “determining whether a non-advertisement is separated from an advertisement slot by a time threshold”, Allowing advertisement execution when the above condition is satisfied” and temporal constraint directly affects how and when advertisement s are inserted into media streams are not additional elements under step 2A, prong two but are improvement to the abstract idea and not technology per se. By enforcing spacing relative to playback and ensuring that advertisements are not placed too close to non-advertisement segments is also part of improving the abstract idea, but a technological component.
The claims are not similar in scope to MCRO because the instant claims pertain to playback and advertisement insertion and an abstract idea, which is not similar in scope to the claims in MCRO, which pertain to automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of animated characters , which is an improvement to computer capabilities and not directed to an Abstract idea as held by the courts.
The additional elements of including advertisement inventory databases via an application programming interface, the machine learning with no details of how the machine learns is simply generic and are considered as “apply it” as the claims invoke the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant further argues that “technical fingerprint” is in the preamble of the claims and even if it was to be claimed in the body of the claims, using technical fingerprint generically to accomplish a business function will not render the claims eligible.
The claims similar to Versata which recite generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally, storing in conjunction with time-threshold based constraints do not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regard to Berkheimer, the Examiner’s burden is only to point out how a non-abstract, claimed elements are routine and well-known. In the case of the present invention, the generic computer components were deemed perse insufficient by the court.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights