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 .
Status of the Claims
Claim 2 was cancelled
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 10-18 are amended
Claims 19-21 are new
Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected
This is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed on August 18, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not considered persuasive.
Regarding Formalities and Section 112, Examiner finds the arguments persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejection, the applicant overcame the rejection by including an amended limitation referencing “a graphical user interface (“GUI”)” in Claim 1. This provides sufficient antecedent basis for the claims that reference “said GUI” in Claims 5, 9, 14, and 18.
Regarding the claim objections, the applicant overcame the objections by correcting the preamble language in Claim 18.
The rejections and objections are withdrawn.
First, regarding the 101 rejections reciting “software per se”, the rejections are withdrawn. Claim 10 and the claims that depend on it fall into one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The argument is persuasive and the claim limitations are deemed statutory subject matter because a non-transitory, machine readable medium is a manufacture, see MPEP 2106.03.
Regarding the 101 rejections of the claims as directed to an abstract idea, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons:
The applicant asserts that the “reciting tools that may be used for advertising, is not reciting the abstract idea of advertising itself, and Claim 1 simply does not recite any of the alleged abstract ideas”. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims explicitly recite advertisers and as such are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically advertising, marketing or sales activities, see MPEP 2016.04.
Further, the applicant asserts that invention “improves the function of a content creation and management system based on a new, distributed computer architecture” which is accomplished functionality of GUIs that “is a unique new machine, and clearly not simply a generic computer performing known tasks. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited functionality of the graphical user interface (GUI) does not demonstrate an improvement of the functioning of the computer itself, see MPEP 2106.05(f). This additional element fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished or show how the present systems reflects an improvement over excising systems.
Further, the applicant asserts that “the claimed system utilizes a distributed network of multiple graphical user interfaces (GUIs)” is “a unique new machine, and clearly not simply a generic computer performing known tasks”. Additionally, the applicant asserts that “Claims 1 et seq. should be considered eligible, because they qualify as improvements to computer systems and a technical field, using a new form of machine, under a streamlined analysis. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (a); see also M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (b).” The examiner respectfully find the arguments to be not persuasive because the claim limitations recite “a graphical user interface (“GUI”) comprising GUI tools” which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2016.05(f).
Further, the applicant asserts that the GUI tools “improves upon GUI technology by adding a functional "GUI overlay," and a "language risk box," which functions by removing content, altering the content, and also improving the content ultimately published through the system.” The examiner respectfully disagrees because, as stated above, the recited functionality of the graphical user interface (GUI) does not demonstrate an improvement it is claimed too broadly and generally to be more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
For the reasons stated above, the examiner finds the arguments to be not persuasive. The 101 rejection is maintained. Please see below for complete rejection of the claims as amended.
Regarding 103 rejections,
The applicant asserts that “the Claims are well distinguished from Ortiz and Broudou in combination.” Further, the applicant asserts that “neither Ortiz nor Broudou disclose any element in any way related to "overlapping rule aspects".” The examiner interprets, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “overlapping rule aspects”, as discussed in ¶0038 of the current specification, to include another set of rules, regulations or any other guidelines that are evaluated in combination to determine a risk score. The examiner directs the applicant to the Broudou reference, ¶0045 as well as ¶0121-22, which defines other set of rules, regulations or any other guidelines and how they applied to determine compliance. The examiner finds this argument to be non-persuasive for the reasons listed above.
Regarding the applicant’s assertion of three unique GUIs, the examiner finds this argument to be not persuasive because although the applicant asserts that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., three unique GUIs) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). That is, the claims as amended do not recite the three types of GUIs the applicant listed in their Remarks.
Accordingly, the 103 rejections are maintained, including the rejection for the dependent claims (the remaining non-canceled claims, Claims 1 and 3-21); please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that the applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, in this case the exception is an abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.03 (I)).
Independent Claims 1 and 10
Judicial Exceptions – Step 2A – Prong One:
At Step 2A Prong One, the claims are evaluated to determine whether it recites a judicial exception. In this case, the claims are directed to abstract ideas since the invention recites a certain method of organizing human activity (MPEP §2106.04). See a listing of the functions recited below:
Independent Claims – Claims 1 and 10; The following limitations are evaluated to determine whether they recite abstract ideas:
create an advertiser user proposed draft advertisement configured to be published on one or more social media platform(s)
assess terms, conditions and other rules adopted by each of said one or more social media platforms, which terms, conditions and other rules impact content advertised on any of said one or more social media platforms
assess common rules, and/or overlapping rule aspects, among said terms, conditions and other rules adopted by each of said plurality of social media platforms
applying said terms, conditions and other rules and common rules, and/or overlapping rule aspects
determine a Risk Score based on a likelihood that said content and/or other data
These limitations are classified as certain methods of organizing human activity and are further classified as commercial or legal interactions due to the abstract ideas being directed toward advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors in order to comply with legal obligations. These tasks are general tasks regularly performed by a Social Media Marketing Manager. This person would create advertisement content, review the content against rules and terms to ensure likelihood of success from being flagged by the social media platform, and evaluate any potential risks, by calculation of a “Risk Score”, before publishing the advertising content on multiple social media platforms.
The claim recites a judicial exception, certain methods of organizing human activity, and will proceed to Prong Two.
Judicial Exceptions – Step 2A – Prong Two –
At Step 2A Prong Two, these limitations need to have additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements listed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the following additional elements –
A content creation and management system, compromising of a control system
A natural language processing module
A data entry tool
An algorithm
A graphical user interface ("GUI") comprising GUI tools
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application due to the following reasons.
First, the additional elements a content creation and management system comprising of control system, when considered individually or in combination, does not integrate into a practical application. Specifically, the specialized computer hardware and software cited in the claim does not provide enough structure to integrate the invention into a practical application. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the references to specialized hardware or software in the specification, in the form of “a desktop software application (App)” or “an SaaS web application”, as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components and generally linking a field of use and merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to integrate the limitations into a practical application.
Next, the additional elements, an algorithm, recites mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, such as a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer.
Accordingly, Claims 1 and 10 recite an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One and are not integrated into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and will be further evaluated as an inventive concept in the Step 2B
Inventive Concept – Step 2B
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. At Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements were found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the combination of additional elements is evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept). The independent claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception given that mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 10 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims –Claims 3-9 and Claims 11-18
Claim 11 recite the abstract idea in the respective independent claims by reciting the limitations and merely adding “a graphical user interface ("GUI") comprising GUI tools” because using a GUI to determine whether advertising content will comply with the social media platform terms, conditions and rules. The additional elements of this claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 11 is rejected due to being abstract and does not integrate into a practical application.
Claims 3 and 12 recite the abstract idea in the respective independent claims by reciting the limitations and merely adding “a graphical user interface ("GUI") comprising GUI tools” because using a GUI to present an updated version of the proposed advertisement draft with a higher likelihood of complying with social media platform terms, condition and rules. The additional elements of these claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 3 and 12 are rejected due to being abstract and does not reflect a practical application.
Claims 4 and 13 recite the abstract idea in the respective independent claims by reciting the limitations and reciting the additional element “one or more social media platform(s) comprise a plurality of social media platforms” because it generally links the use of computer functionality and merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Claims 4 and 13 are rejected due to being abstract and does not reflect a practical application.
Claims 5 and 14 recite the abstract idea as the respective independent claims by reciting the limitations and merely adding “GUI” because it recites a generic use of a computer to confine the abstract idea of identifying whether an advertisement copy will comply said terms, conditions, and other rules. The additional elements of these claims fail to recite details of how a solution is accomplished; whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 5 and 14 are rejected due to being abstract and does not reflect a practical application.
Claims 6 and 15 recite the abstract idea as the respective independent claims by reciting the limitations and merely adding “a content creation and management system” because it recites a generic use of a computer. The additional elements of these claims fail to recite details of how a solution to determine whether an advertisement copy is approved or disapproved for publication on one or more social media platform; whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 6 and 15 are rejected due to being abstract and does not reflect a practical application.
Claims 7 and 16 recite the abstract idea as the respective independent claims by reciting the limitations and merely adding “a content creation and management system” because it recites a generic use of a computer. The additional elements of these claims fail to recite details of how a solution to publishing an approved advertisement is accomplished; whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 7 and 16 are rejected due to being abstract and does not reflect a practical application.
Claims 8 and 17 recite the abstract idea as the respective independent claims by reciting the limitations and merely adding “a content creation and management system” because it recites a generic use of a computer. The additional elements of these claims fail to recite details of how a solution to identify data from a website and determine a supplemental “Risk Score” is accomplished; whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 8 and 17 are rejected due to being abstract and does not reflect a practical application.
Claims 9 and 18 recite the abstract idea as the respective independent claims by reciting the limitations and merely adding “GUI and GUI tools ” because it recites a generic use of a computer. The additional elements of these claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 9 and 18 are rejected due to being abstract and does not reflect a practical application.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz et al, United States Patent Application Publication US 2020/0007934 A1, herein referred to as “Ortiz” in view of Broudou et al, US Pub No. US 2016/0321582 A1, herein referred to as “Broudou”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Ortiz teaches the following limitations:
create an advertiser user proposed draft advertisement configured to be published on one or more social media platform(s),
(“[0112] In various exemplary embodiments of the invention, interlocking methods and systems are provided to allow entities to: (1) select a set of one or more broadcasters, target demographics, or other factors during the Creation stage 101; (2) automatically manage and distribute pieces of multimedia content across multiple social media and other platforms (e.g., TWITCH™, both in-stream and in-profile, TWITTER™, FACEBOOK™, etc.)”)(¶0112)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “publish on one or more social media platform(s)” is the equivalent of “distribute multimedia content across multiple social media and other platforms”
based on content and other data uploaded and/or drafted by said advertiser user on said control system;
(“[0174] In the embodiments including Campaign Management Module 207, each system user is given a unique campaign management dashboard for which each associated campaign piece of multimedia content section is displayed. Users may create, edit, and delete each piece of multimedia content from this module. In certain embodiments, the user may create and upload a JPEG image as a static banner graphic, enter a desired target URL, and name the piece of multimedia content. In other embodiments, the user may create and upload any other form of audio, video, or text file.”)(¶0174)
However, Ortiz does not teach, but Broudou does teach the following limitations:
assess terms, conditions and other rules adopted by each of said one or more social media platforms, which terms, conditions and other rules impact content advertised on any of said one or more social media platforms, via a Natural Language Processing module of said specialized computer hardware and software
(“[0053] The knowledge base of the system may preferably be compiled from a learning document comprising at least one of; jurisdictional legislation, a legislative Act, legislative Regulations, company policies, company procedures or another set of rules, regulations or any other guidelines. Distinct markers may be extracted from the training documents and transformed such that the learning stage of the system may read or otherwise interpret the training documents without significant intervention from a user or system administrator. The distinct markers extracted may then be identified by the system and classified based on the predetermined classifiers. …
[0054] … Preferably, the knowledge base may be adapted to learn from new documents assessed by the system and update the rules according to user feedback, input or approval (210). The feedback may then be aggregated (220) and training samples (230) may be used in combination with the machine learning of the system (240). The samples may teach the system at least one of a new classifier, a new rule or may update existing rules and classifiers to provide an improved degree of certainty. ...”)(Fig. 1, Fig. 2 ¶0053-54)
determine rules, and overlapping rule aspects, based on said terms, conditions and other rules adopted by each of said plurality of social media platforms, and based, at least in part, on the entry of content including at least some similar data by multiple other users of a data entry tool eliciting data of the same type, which content is later flagged by one or more members of a social media community;
(“[0053] The knowledge base of the system may preferably be compiled from a learning document comprising at least one of; jurisdictional legislation, a legislative Act, legislative Regulations, company policies, company procedures or another set of rules, regulations or any other guidelines. … The system may then assess whether any rules which the classifier is associated with have been triggered or breached by the distinct marker such that if the system detects a particular term, phrase, string or an array of words or other breach of a rule the document may assign a risk value to the distinct marker. ...”)(¶0053)
create an algorithm for applying said terms, conditions and other rules and common rules, and/or overlapping rule aspects, to said content for a proposed advertisement;
[0052] The system may be comprised of two stages a learning stage 200 and an execution stage 100. … The information may then be interpreted by the system with reference to at least one of a thesaurus, a dictionary, a predictive text algorithm, knowledge base, data set, sample document or other user samples or rules.”) (¶0052)
determine a Risk Score based on said applying said algorithm on correlation of said data, wherein said Risk Score indicates a numerically-expressed probability that said content and/or other data for said advertiser user proposed draft advertisement will or will not comply with social media advertising rules.
(“[0092] In a preferred embodiment, the calculation of the risk value may be assess using at least one of a rule's base line risk score and confidence score. Optionally, a factor or other manipulation of the risk value associated with a distinct marker may be factored or otherwise manipulated. The risk value may increase or decrease in severity based on the terms or phrases within the distinct marker. …”)(¶0092)
a graphical user interface ("GUI") comprising GUI tools: facilitating the entry of said content and other data for said advertiser user proposed draft advertisement
(“[0102] The system may optionally be adapted to learn from user feedback and adjust a risk value based on the user feedback received. This allows a risk value to be modified and increase the likelihood that a particular rule has been correctly triggered (see FIG. 2). ... Preferably, the user of the system provides feedback through a user interface. The user interface may optionally allow for a manipulation of the final risk value. Optionally, the user may be required to have permission or sufficient rights to provide feedback or input for the system.”)(Fig. 2 ¶0102)
identifying parts of said content and other data for said advertiser user proposed draft advertisement, via a visible GUI overlay, wherein said visible GUI overlay includes a language risk box and actuable request button, related to said probability that said content and/or other data for said advertiser user proposed draft advertisement will or will not comply with social media advertising rules.
(“[0102] The system may optionally be adapted to learn from user feedback and adjust a risk value based on the user feedback received. This allows a risk value to be modified and increase the likelihood that a particular rule has been correctly triggered (see FIG. 2). ... Preferably, the user of the system provides feedback through a user interface. The user interface may optionally allow for a manipulation of the final risk value. Optionally, the user may be required to have permission or sufficient rights to provide feedback or input for the system.”)(Fig. 2 ¶0102)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the advertisement campaign management techniques of Ortiz and the rules assessment and compliance teachings of Broudou to ensure that advertising content complies with advertising rules. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to automate the rules assessment process required to reduce advertising compliance risk in an efficient manner.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Ortiz and Broudou teach all the limitations in the claims above and Ortiz further teaches the following limitations:
presenting a new version of said advertiser user proposed draft advertisement with a decreased likelihood that said content for a proposed advertisement will not comply with said terms, conditions and other rules and common rules, and/or overlapping rule aspects.
(“[0116] FIG. 2 is a diagram depicting an exemplary embodiment depicted in FIG. 1 of the invention in more detail. For example, in the embodiment of campaign Creation stage 101 depicted in FIG. 2, information regarding potential broadcasting platforms for a campaign is provided by Broadcaster Database 201, and information regarding campaigns made up of items of multimedia content (for example, an entity's desired goals or requirements for that campaign, and/or potential items of content (advertising, promotional, or otherwise) that could potentially be part of that campaign) is provided by Campaign Database 202. In this embodiment of Creation stage 101, the information from databases 201 and 202 is then input into one or more machine learning models 203, which runs simulations of potential campaigns based on the information provided by databases 201 and 202. Based on the results of those simulations, the machine learning model(s) 203 then generate(s) recommendations 204. For example, the recommendations 204 generated by machine learning model(s) 203 may include particular pieces of multimedia content that are recommended to be part of the campaign, as well as one or more broadcasting platforms that it is recommended for which the campaign should be distributed. Based on those recommendations, the manager of the campaign finalizes Campaign Creation 205 by specifying one or more factors to include in the campaign.”)(Fig. 1, Fig. 2 ¶0116)
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Ortiz and Broudou teach all the limitations in the claims above and Ortiz further teaches the following limitations:
wherein said one or more social media platform(s) comprise a plurality of social media platforms.
(“[0112] … automatically manage and distribute pieces of multimedia content across multiple social media and other platforms (e.g., TWITCH™, both in-stream and in-profile, TWITTER™, FACEBOOK™, etc.) …”)(¶0112)
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Ortiz and Broudou teach all the limitations in the claims above and Broudou further teaches the following limitations:
wherein said GUI identifies said terms, conditions and other rules and common rules, and overlapping rule aspects that said proposed advertisement will not comply with.
(“[0102] The system may optionally be adapted to learn from user feedback and adjust a risk value based on the user feedback received. This allows a risk value to be modified and increase the likelihood that a particular rule has been correctly triggered (see FIG. 2). ... Preferably, the user of the system provides feedback through a user interface. The user interface may optionally allow for a manipulation of the final risk value. Optionally, the user may be required to have permission or sufficient rights to provide feedback or input for the system.”)(Fig. 2 ¶0102)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the advertisement campaign management techniques of Ortiz and the rules assessment and compliance teachings of Broudou to ensure that advertising content complies with advertising rules through the use of a user interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to automate the rules assessment process required to reduce advertising compliance risk in an efficient manner.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Ortiz and Broudou teach all the limitations in the claims above and Ortiz further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the system determines whether said advertiser user proposed draft advertisement is approved or disapproved for publication on any of said one or more social media platform(s).
(“[0112] In various exemplary embodiments of the invention, interlocking methods and systems are provided to allow entities to: (1) select a set of one or more broadcasters, target demographics, or other factors during the Creation stage 101; (2) automatically manage and distribute pieces of multimedia content across multiple social media and other platforms (e.g., TWITCH™, both in-stream and in-profile, TWITTER™, FACEBOOK™, etc.) during Execution stage 102”)(Fig. 1 ¶0112)
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Ortiz and Broudou teach all the limitations in the claims above and Ortiz further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the system publishes said advertiser user proposed draft advertisement if said proposed advertisement is approved for publication.
(“[0172] Once the entity has selected the platforms and/or individuals and the pieces of multimedia content, the campaign moves from the creation stage to the execution stage. The execution system will be described through reference to FIG. 2. In these embodiments of the invention, pieces of multimedia content in the form of media, images, text, or any other form are distributed to any number of content creators or platforms across multiple channels. A campaign may be a blank slate; each piece of multimedia content may be uploaded or created through a form by a user to exist within the campaign. …”)(Fig. 2 ¶0172)
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Ortiz and Broudou teach all the limitations in the claims above and Ortiz further teaches the following limitations:
wherein said control system identifies, crawls and/or scrapes data from a website owned or managed by said advertiser user,
(“[0209] In certain embodiments, expected action output is observable in various web pages or web applications 504b, such as the broadcaster's TWITCH™ Profile page. Data may be collected from web pages/web applications using a web scraper 505b. A “web scraper” is a type of application that is used to fetch web data as code. In certain embodiments, the embedded web scraper will download both the source code of the web page (its current HTML and javascript) for later parsing, and any embedded media files (e.g., images and videos).”)(Fig. 5 ¶0209)
However, Ortiz does not fully teach, but Broudou does teach determines a supplemental Risk Score that content of said website owned or managed by said user
(“[0151] It will be appreciated that a scan of a webpage may include and/or exclude advertisement material which is associated with the page. Gifs, animations, videos, metadata, adwords, tags, images or the like are may also be assessed by the system for compliance. If there is advertisement material which may be potentially non-compliant the system any flag the advertisement for review or send a request to the advertiser to remove or modify the advertisement to bring it into compliance to reduce the risk for potentially misleading or deceptive advertising.”)(¶0151)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the advertisement campaign management techniques of Ortiz and the rules assessment and compliance teachings of Broudou to ensure that advertising content complies with advertising rules. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to automate the rules assessment process required to reduce advertising compliance risk in an efficient manner.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Ortiz and Broudou teach all the limitations in the claims above and Broudou further teaches the following limitations:
wherein said GUI is configured to: identify parts of said website related to said supplemental Risk Score; present GUI tools proposing website edits and information related to decreasing a likelihood that said website will not comply with said terms, conditions and other rules and common rules, and/or overlapping rule aspects.
(“[0102] The system may optionally be adapted to learn from user feedback and adjust a risk value based on the user feedback received. This allows a risk value to be modified and increase the likelihood that a particular rule has been correctly triggered (see FIG. 2). ... Preferably, the user of the system provides feedback through a user interface. The user interface may optionally allow for a manipulation of the final risk value. Optionally, the user may be required to have permission or sufficient rights to provide feedback or input for the system.”)(Fig. 2 ¶0102)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the advertisement campaign management techniques of Ortiz and the rules assessment and compliance teachings of Broudou to ensure that advertising content complies with advertising rules. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to automate the rules assessment process required to reduce advertising compliance risk in an efficient manner.
Regarding Claim 11, Ortiz and Broudou teach all the limitations in the claims above and Broudou further teaches the following limitations:
a graphical user interface ("GUI") comprising GUI tools: facilitating the entry of said content and other data for said advertiser user proposed draft advertisement
(“[0102] The user interface ...”)(Fig. 2 ¶0102)
identifying parts of said content and other data for said advertiser user proposed draft advertisement, via a visible GUI overlay, wherein said visible GUI overlay includes a language risk box and actuable request button, related to said likelihood that said content and other data will not comply with said social media advertising rules
(¶0100 – A risk matrix may also be generated by the system which may plot each triggered rule to graphically illustrate the level of risk. … allows a user to highlight areas in a graphical output)(¶0100)
See also (“[0102] The system may optionally be adapted to learn from user feedback and adjust a risk value based on the user feedback received. This allows a risk value to be modified and increase the likelihood that a particular rule has been correctly triggered (see FIG. 2). ... Preferably, the user of the system provides feedback through a user interface. The user interface may optionally allow for a manipulation of the final risk value. Optionally, the user may be required to have permission or sufficient rights to provide feedback or input for the system.”)(Fig. 2 ¶0102)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the advertisement campaign management techniques of Ortiz and the rules assessment and compliance teachings of Broudou to ensure that advertising content complies with advertising rules through the use of a user interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to automate the rules assessment process required to reduce advertising compliance risk in an efficient manner.
Regarding Claim 19, Ortiz and Broudou teach all the limitations in the claims above and Broudou further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the language risk box covers language contributing to said risk score
(¶0100 – A risk matrix may also be generated by the system which may plot each triggered rule to graphically illustrate the level of risk. … allows a user to highlight areas in a graphical output)(¶0100)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the advertisement campaign management techniques of Ortiz and the rules assessment and compliance teachings of Broudou to ensure that advertising content complies with advertising rules through the use of a user interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to automate the rules assessment process required to reduce advertising compliance risk in an efficient manner.
Regarding Claim 20, Ortiz and Broudou teach all the limitations in the claims above and Broudou further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the actuable request button, when actuated, causes said system to generate alternative text replacing, at least in part, said language contributing to said risk score:
(¶0100 – A risk matrix may also be generated by the system which may plot each triggered rule to graphically illustrate the level of risk. … allows a user to highlight areas in a graphical output)(¶0100)
See also (“The published or unpublished document may be generated by a user or by a system, such as a system which automatically prepared statements of advice (which may also be referred to as a robo-advice platform or robo-advisor).”)(¶0123)
See also (“… It will be appreciated that a robo-advice platform may be used by the system to guide users.”)(¶0149)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the advertisement campaign management techniques of Ortiz and the rules assessment and compliance teachings of Broudou to ensure that advertising content complies with advertising rules through the use of a user interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to automate the rules assessment process required to reduce advertising compliance risk in an efficient manner.
Regarding Claim 21, Ortiz and Broudou teach all the limitations in the claims above and Broudou further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the language risk box covers language contributing to said risk score and wherein the actuable request button, when actuated, causes said system to generate alternative text replacing, at least in part, said language contributing to said risk score:
(¶0100 – A risk matrix may also be generated by the system which may plot each triggered rule to graphically illustrate the level of risk. … allows a user to highlight areas in a graphical output)(¶0100)
See also (“The published or unpublished document may be generated by a user or by a system, such as a system which automatically prepared statements of advice (which may also be referred to as a robo-advice platform or robo-advisor).”)(¶0123)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the advertisement campaign management techniques of Ortiz and the rules assessment and compliance teachings of Broudou to ensure that advertising content complies with advertising rules through the use of a user interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to automate the rules assessment process required to reduce advertising compliance risk in an efficient manner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHUL SHARMA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8-5 CT.
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 on (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.
/RAHUL SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626