DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first.
Claim Status
Claims 63, and 107 are amended.
Claims 1-62, 66, 68-71 73, 75, 77, 79-82, 85-106, 110, 112-115, 117, 119, 121, and 123-126 are canceled.
No newly added claims.
Claims 63-65, 67, 72, 74, 76, 78, 83, 84, 107-109, 111, 116, 118, 120, 122, and 127-130 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed on 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, reasons are set forth below.
Regarding applicant’s argument (Remarks page 11-12) that, “Haumont is directed toward using soft limits for advertising in mobile device caching scenarios. Haumont's soft limits are parameters that trigger when to request additional advertisements to be downloaded to a device's cache. Haumont describes rotating advertisements to prevent user boredom. Haumont does not disclose using user impression information to manage sequencing in the context of fulfilling campaign specification information across multiple UEDs. Furthermore, Haumont crucially does not disclose the aspect of updated user impression information. The updating of the user impression information is crucial for ensuring that specific delivery requirements can be fulfilled. The Applicant asserts that, without reciting this crucial aspect of updating user impression information, Haumont cannot describe how the updated user impression information is utilized.”
In response, the examiner respectfully points out that, Haumont was only used to teach features of managing asset delivery based on updated user impression, in this case managing sequencing of asset delivery when updated delivery information is known. Haumont in Par. 0033 discloses, after one advertisement is displayed for five impressions to a particular user (i.e. using this as updated impression information), the system 100 may begin retrieving other advertisements to rotate with the one initial advertisement, the initial advertisement can be mixed with the presentation of other advertisement, i.e. managing the sequencing of asset delivery based specific number of impression update has been received. Contrary to applicant’s argument that Haumont does not disclose using user impression information to manage sequencing in the context of fulfilling campaign specification information across multiple UEDs, current claim language does not recite such as “fulfilling campaign specification by using updated user impression to manage sequencing of asset delivery”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding applicant’s argument (Remarks page 12-13) that Cannon does not discloses, “a frequency of delivery parameter” Therefore, Cannon does not disclose the features of claim 82, that have now been incorporated into claim 63.
In response, the examiner respectfully points out that, previously cited Cannon fig. 16, 20, and 26 to teach the limitation of claim 82 discloses in its associated paragraphs the amended limitation of claim 63. In view of applicant’s specification page 11 disclosing, frequency of delivery (e.g. how often an asset may be delivered to particular user), being interpreted as, “the frequency of delivery parameter indicative of a maximum impression count corresponding to a number of instances the user views the first asset within an identified period.”
Cannon in fig. 16 and related paragraph in col. 39, line 16-37 discloses advertising campaign and frequency of advertisement value, frequency value being 1 that indicates total number of desired exposure is three (i.e. maximum impression count) during the life (i.e. identified period being life of the advertising campaign) of the advertising campaign. Cannon further in fig. 20 and related paragraph in col. 45, line 17-30 discloses, the data shown in the table in FIG. 20 illustrates a simple example of two advertising plans or schedule that have identical average frequency values, but with greatly differing frequency distributions. Two members of the sample for plan or schedule A were exposed only one time each, while person number 3 was exposed seven times, thus resulting in an average frequency of three. Therefore, Cannon teaches user exposure to advertisement represents the level of how many times user was exposed to advertisement (i.e. fulfilled advertisement plan in relation to frequency when advertisement was delivered)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the 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 63, 67, 72, 74, 76, 78, 83, 84, 107, 111, 116, 118, 120, 122, and 127-130 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maughan, US 20170085962 in view of Cannon, US Patent No. 6,286,005, in further view of Downey et al., US 20080216107, in further view of Haumont et al., US 20110238466.
As to claim 63 Maughan discloses a method of delivering addressable assets to users using communication media including broadcast media, wherein each user is associated with a set of user equipment devices (UEDs), each UED of the set of UEDs remote from and in operative communication with an asset decisioning system (Fig. 4; ¶¶75-78), the method comprising:
transmitting an indication from a first UED of a first set of UEDs associated with a first user of the users, the indication indicative of the first UED playing a first asset of a first asset set (¶¶98-99; Fig. 1: 910 – it is determined (by a server: see ¶130) that a UED has played a first asset. As this determination is made at the server, an indication of the playback is sent from the UED to the server), wherein the indication is transmitted such that the asset decisioning system updates user impression information associated with the first asset and the first user, the user impression information representing a level of fulfillment of campaign specification information for the first asset in relation to the first user (¶¶130-131 and 136-137; Fig. 9 – a server (i.e. an asset decisioning system) determines that a user using the a user device (i.e. UED) has viewed a first advertisement and updates impression information and whether a retargeting threshold (i.e. a campaign specification) has been met. Also see par. 0110, determining of a retargeting sequence for execution based on a tracking a series of user interactions with advertisement that might lead to conversion based on requests received from sponsor of advertisement (i.e. campaign specification)); and
receiving a playlist at a second UED of the set of UEDs associated with the first user that instructs the second UED to play a second asset of the first asset set, the same as or different than the first asset, based on a determination at the asset decisioning system that the user impression information satisfies the campaign specification information (¶¶98-99 and 108; Fig. 7 and Fig. 9 – when view count exceed a threshold, an ad playlist (see ¶¶103-104) is sent to a second UED, Also see par. 0012, control circuitry of a user equipment device determines that a second advertisement has been displayed to the user using the social network platform (e.g., through a mobile application), i.e. advertisement was displayed on first UED being television equipment (equipment 402, fig. 4) while second advertisement was displayed using the social network through mobile application (i.e. running on mobile telephone or PDA), par. 0123, while watching a television broadcast on user television equipment 402, user may be presented with a first series of advertisements related to a product and subsequently presented a second series of advertisements on an e-mail service being accessed on a user computer equipment 404 (e.g. a laptop) accessed by the user (i.e. both television equipment and laptop both related to the same user)),
wherein the asset decisioning system is configured to compare the updated user impression information with the campaign specification information for the first asset to determine that the user impression information satisfies the campaign specification information (Fig. 9; ¶109 – it is determined if the user has viewed the last advertisement in the retargeting sequence, i.e. if the user impression satisfies the campaign specification information) and one of said first and second UEDs is operative to play a respective one of said first and second assets in connection with playing programming of a broadcast network (¶43).
Maughan does not disclose, the campaign specification information includes a frequency of delivery parameter, the frequency of delivery parameter indicative of a maximum impression count corresponding to a number of instances the user views the first asset within an identified period, the user impression information representing a level of fulfillment of the campaign specification information in relation to the frequency of delivery parameter based at least partially on the time of delivery of the first asset by the UED,
wherein the updated user impression information includes that the first asset was played by the first UAD in its entirety or that the play of the first asset by the first UAD was incomplete,
using the updated user impression information to manage one or more selected from the group consisting of:
frequency of asset delivery:
pace of asset delivery;
sequencing of asset delivery; and
total number of impressions.
Cannon discloses, the campaign specification information includes a frequency of delivery parameter, the frequency of delivery parameter indicative of a maximum impression count corresponding to a number of instances the user views the first asset within an identified period (Fig. 16 and related paragraph in col. 39, line 16-37 discloses advertising campaign and frequency of advertisement value, frequency value being 1 that indicates total number of desired exposure is three (i.e. maximum impression count) during the life (i.e. identified period being life of the advertising campaign) of the advertising campaign ), the user impression information representing a level of fulfillment of the campaign specification information in relation to the frequency of delivery parameter based at least partially on the time of delivery of the first asset by the UED (Fig. 20 and related paragraph in col. 45, line 17-30 discloses, the data shown in the table in FIG. 20 illustrates a simple example of two advertising plans or schedule that have identical average frequency values, but with greatly differing frequency distributions. Two members of the sample for plan or schedule A were exposed only one time each, while person number 3 was exposed seven times, thus resulting in an average frequency of three, i.e. user exposure to advertisement represents the level of how many times user was exposed to advertisement (i.e. fulfilled advertisement plan in relation to frequency when advertisement was delivered)).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Maughan with the teachings of Cannon, the motivation being to optimize advertisement delivery (see Cannon col. 30 and 31, line 1-30).
Maughan in view of Cannon does not disclose, wherein the updated user impression information includes that the first asset was played by the first UAD in its entirety or that the play of the first asset by the first UAD was incomplete,
using the updated user impression information to manage one or more selected from the group consisting of:
frequency of asset delivery:
pace of asset delivery;
sequencing of asset delivery; and
total number of impressions.
Downey discloses, wherein the updated user impression information includes that the first asset was played by the first UAD in its entirety or that the play of the first asset by the first UAD was incomplete (Par. 0013, monitoring consumption of assets transmitted in a communications network, for example, a cable television network. The utility involves: monitoring user inputs, e.g., at a user equipment device, in relation to playing of an asset; information related to the user inputs to determine a consumption status of the asset. For example, the consumption status may indicate that the asset was not consumed (e.g., that a user or skipped or fast-forwarded through an ad, that an asset was only partially consumed (e.g., that a user tuned away from an ad), Par. 0014, user inputs is reported to a network platform where the inputs can be analyzed in relation to stored information, concerning assets transmitted in the network, to determine what assets were consumed, whether they were consumed in full and, perhaps, what level of interest is indicated. The input stream may also be analyzed to obtain demographic or classification information regarding the user, i.e. impression information includes asset was played at use device whether play of asset was complete or incomplete).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Maughan in view of Cannon with the teachings of Downey, to include the feature of updating impression information that includes that the first asset was played by the first UAD in its entirety or that the play of the first asset by the first UAD was incomplete, the motivation being to provide verifiable consumption of assets and to track level of interest in assets consumption (see Downey, par. 0002, 0039).
Maughan in view of Cannon in further view of Downey does not disclose, using the updated user impression information to manage one or more selected from the group consisting of:
frequency of asset delivery:
pace of asset delivery;
sequencing of asset delivery; and
total number of impressions.
Haumont discloses, using the updated user impression information to manage one or more selected from the group consisting of:
frequency of asset delivery:
pace of asset delivery;
sequencing of asset delivery (Par. 0033, after one advertisement is displayed for five impressions to a particular user (i.e. using this as impression information), the system 100 may begin retrieving other advertisements to rotate with the one initial advertisement so that the user does not become bored of or jaded to the initial advertisement. In this example, the initial advertisement remains valid (e.g., because the hard limit for the advertisement has not yet been reached) and can be mixed with the presentation other advertisements until the initial advertisement is no longer valid, i.e. managing the sequencing of asset delivery based specific number of impression update has been received); and
total number of impressions.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Maughan in view of Cannon in further view of Downey, by the teachings of Haumont, to include the feature of using the updated user impression information to manage sequencing of asset delivery, the motivation being to not make user bored of or jaded by the same advertisement shown repeatedly, to increase the effectiveness of advertisements while keeping better user experience (see Haumont, par. 0001, 0033).
As to claims 67 and 111 Maughan in view of Cannon in further view of Downey in further view of Haumont teaches, transmitting audience feedback information from a UED indicative of user interaction with the UED during the playing of the first asset (Downey Par. 0022, 0067, Consumption information may be recorded on a spot-by-spot basis, records may be transmitted individually to the platform or skip information for a number of skip inputs may be stored and transmitted together to the platform of the communications network, i.e. user interaction with asset at user device during the playback of advertisement is transmitted to broadcast platform).
As to claims 72 and 116 Cannon discloses that the asset decisioning system is configured to: obtain, from asset providers, decisioning information for assets, the decisioning information identifying target audiences for the assets; and obtain audience classification information for users, the audience classification information including at least one classification parameter (col. 30 lines 23-60).
As to claims 74 and 118 Cannon discloses that the first asset set comprises assets for which the corresponding decisioning information matches the audience classification information of the first user (Cannon col. 30 lines 23-60; col. 61 lines 54-64).
As to claim 76 Maughan discloses that the second UED accesses the second asset via a computer-based content exchange remote from the asset decisioning system (Fig. 4: 414).
As to claim 78 Maughan discloses that the computer-based content exchange involves an IP-based data network (¶78).
As to claim 83 and 127 Cannon discloses that the campaign specification information includes a minimum time interval parameter, the minimum time interval parameter indicative of minimum time period between the instances of the user viewing the first asset within the identified period, the user impression information representing a level of fulfillment of the campaign specification information in relation to the minimum time interval parameter based at least partially on the time of delivery of the first asset by the UED (col. 53 lines 35-64).
As to claim 84 and 128 Cannon discloses that the playlist instructs the second UED to play the first asset of the asset set if and only if the user impression information is less than a maximum viewing parameter associated with the campaign specification information, the maximum viewing parameter representing a predetermined level of instances for which the first asset is scheduled for playing across the first set of UEDs associated with the first user (col. 39 lines 16-63).
As to claim 107 see rejection of claim 63. Maughan discloses, in the passages cited in the rejection of claim 63, the communication system including first UED, second UED, asset decisioning system recited in claim 107.
As to claims 120 and 122, see rejection of claims 76 and 78.
As to claims 129 Maughan discloses that said second asset is different than said first asset, method further comprises determining that a delivery constraint concerning said first asset is satisfied, in response, playing said second asset at said second UED (Fig. 7; ¶¶98-99 – different ads are played on the second platform only if the retargeting threshold is met by delivering the first asset on the first platform).
As to claims 130 Maughan discloses wherein said second asset is different than said first asset and said second UED plays said second asset only if a delivery constraint concerning said first asse is satisfied (Fig. 7; ¶¶98-99 – different ads are played on the second platform only if the retargeting threshold is met by delivering the first asset on the first platform).
Claims 64-65 and 108-109 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maughan in view of Cannon in further view of Downey in further view of Haumont, in further view of Flickinger, US Pub No. 20020083441.
As to claim 64 Maughan discloses that the advertisement is stored at the UED (see ¶55), but fails to teach: before the receiving: storing the second asset of the first asset set at a memory structure of the second UED, wherein the second asset is selectively stored at least partially based on an instruction received at the second UED to store the second asset of the first asset set.
However, in an analogous art, Flickinger discloses storing an asset of an asset set at a memory structure of a UED, wherein the asset is selectively stored at least partially based on an instruction received at the UED to store the asset of the asset set (¶55; Fig. 5, step 509, par. 0048, the ads themselves are also transmitted to the STBs 200 for storage until they are "played". Here plurality of STBs means that ads will be stored on first, second or any multiple devices).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Maughan in view of Cannon in further view of Downey in further view of Haumont with the teachings of Flickinger, the motivation being to provide greater targeting specificity and ad play verification (see Flickinger [0045]).
As to claim 65 the system of Maughan in view of Cannon in further view of Downey in further view of Haumont in further view of Flickinger disclose that the playlist is transmitted to the another UED (Maughan Fig. 9: 960) wherein the stored assets are selectively stored at least partially based on the instructing (Flickinger [0056], Fig. 5). These references fail to disclose that second UED receives the playlist based on the assets stored at the memory structure of the second UED. However, official notice is taken that this was well known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. For example, it was widely practiced to determine what content to send to a receiver based on the content it already has stored in local memory. Therefore it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the system of Maughan in view of Cannon in further view of Downey in further view of Haumont to include this functionality, the rationale being to conserve network resources by avoiding unnecessary transmission of assets that are already stored on the destination device.
As to claims 108-109 see rejection of claims 64-65.
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 AKSHAY DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, JOHN W MILLER can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
/A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights