DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response received 02/10/2026 for 18235242. Claims 1, 3-17, and 19-20 are pending.
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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new and/or updated citations used in the current rejection of record under Choi in view of Brown in response to the newly amended limitations, including at least displaying a modified publisher content page with a link below a publisher frame header as disclosed in Choi [Figs. 3-4, 6, para 0027, 0038-0040].
Applicant's arguments essentially consist of reciting the claim language, copying portions of each reference, and asserting each reference does not disclose the recited claim language, which are not separate arguments for patentability of the claims and amount to mere allegation that the cited prior art references are deficient. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references neither "distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action" nor presents "arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references" as required in Applicant's reply [see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b)].
As noted below, the Office Action presents updated citations of Choi as evidence that stands in direct contrast to Applicant's arguments that Choi and Brown, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the newly amended limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 remains rejected.
Claims 17 and 20 recite similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 and remain rejected upon a similar basis as claim 1 as stated above.
Dependent claims 3-16 and 19 remain rejected at least based on their dependence from independent claims 1 and 17.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “communication interface configured to receive []” in claim 1 (note structural processor coupled to the communication interface).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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, 3-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 20210287258 A1) in view of and Brown et al. (US 20110125594 A1).
As to claim 1, Choi discloses a system [Fig. 7, para 0041, system], comprising:
a communication interface [para 0013, claim 18, system includes communication interface] configured to receive a request for a publisher content page [Figs. 7-8, para 0017, 0041, 0043, client system requests publisher content page from server]; and
a processor coupled to the communication interface [para 0013, claim 18, system includes communication interface coupled to processor performing method] and configured to:
determine which portion of the publisher content page corresponds to a header of the publisher content page [para 0025, 0035-0036, 0041, retrieve publisher content page including publisher frame including page header location];
modify code associated with publisher content page to include executable code, wherein content associated with a native advertisement is preloaded into the code associated with the publisher content page [para 0026-0029, 0034-0035, modify code of publisher content page to include pre-fetched third party ad content linked to native ad]; and
send the publisher content page and the executable code comprising the native advertisement to a requesting client via the communication interface in response to the request, wherein when the executable code is executed by the requesting client, the executable code [Figs. 6-9, para 0013, 0040-0041, 0043-0044, system includes communication interface coupled to processor performing method including providing code comprising publisher page content including native ad to client system (read: requesting client)] is configured to:
modify an instance of the publisher content page to include an element to display a native advertisement content as … at least a portion of the modified instance of the publisher content page responsive to a user input associated with the element included in the modified instance of the publisher content page, wherein the portion of the modified instance of the publisher content page … is below the portion of the publisher content page which corresponds to the header [Figs. 3-4, 6, para 0027, 0038-0040, modify publisher content page including native ad link (read: element) displaying native ad content in portion of modified publisher content page in response to receiving selecting native ad link, where modified publisher content page displays link below header location of publisher frame], and
in response to a determination that the user selects the native advertisement, display the preloaded content associated with the native advertisement [Fig. 3, para 0027, display pre-fetched third part ad content in event that native ad is selected].
However, Choi does not specifically disclose a native advertisement content as an overlay covering at least a portion of the modified instance of the publisher content page responsive, wherein the portion of the modified instance of the publisher content page that the overlay covers is below the portion of the publisher content page which corresponds to the header.
Brown discloses a native advertisement content as an overlay covering at least a portion of the modified instance of the publisher content page responsive, wherein the portion of the modified instance of the publisher content page that the overlay covers is below the portion of the publisher content page which corresponds to the header [Figs. 5-6, para 0087-0088, 0140-0141, 0155, interact with advertisement embedded in webpage to display advertisement overlaid on webpage at bottom (read: below) where website branding located at top (read: header) of page is not covered].
Choi and Brown are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of browser advertisement interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the native advertisement content and portion of the modified instance of the publisher content page as disclosed by Choi with a native advertisement content as an overlay covering the modified instance of the publisher content page as disclosed by Brown with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Choi as described above to provide user awareness and prevent confusion [Brown, para 0155].
As to claim 3, Choi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the header associated with the publisher content page using a template specific to a publisher of the publisher content page [Fig. 3, para 0025, 0035-0036, 0041, generate publisher frame from layout (read: template) of publisher site provided, note broadest reasonable interpretation of template includes any arrangement of information].
As to claim 4, Choi discloses the system of claim 3.
Choi teaches the claimed features except wherein the template specific to the publisher of the publisher content page includes a cascading style sheet (CSS) selector.
Choi teaches wherein the template specific to the publisher of the publisher content page includes website code [Fig. 3, para 0025, 0035-0036, 0041, read publisher site layout including publisher site code].
Brown teaches website code includes a cascading style sheet (CSS) selector [para 0087, 0128, control website style and formatting using cascading style sheets].
Because Choi and Brown are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of browser advertisement interfaces, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device to have a reasonable expectation of success of wherein the template specific to the publisher of the publisher content page includes a cascading style sheet (CSS) selector [see MPEP 2143].
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply this teaching to Choi to utilize known methods of website generation code [Brown, para 0087, 0128].
As to claim 5, Choi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine which version of the native advertisement content to include in the executable code based on the header of the publisher content page [para 0025, 0035-0036, 0038-0040, create modified version native advertisement including one or both of publisher frame and tracking code as linked in modified publisher content page using frame layout of publisher site].
As to claim 6, Choi discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the determined version of the native advertisement content is … the modified instance of the publisher content page [para 0038-0040, create modified version native advertisement linked in modified publisher content page].
However, Choi does not specifically disclose the overlay covering an area below the header of the modified instance of the publisher content page.
Brown discloses wherein the determined version of the native advertisement content is the overlay covering an area below the header of the modified instance of the publisher content page [para 0081, 0155, 0166-0170, determine advertisement state (read: version) placing advertisement covering website webpage at bottom of webpage in relation to website branding (read: header), where advertisement is embedded in website webpage].
Choi and Brown are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of browser advertisement interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determined version of a native advertisement for a modified instance of a publisher content page as disclosed by Choi with an overlay covering an area below a page header as disclosed by Brown with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Choi as described above to prevent user confusion between website elements [Brown, para 0155].
As to claim 7, Choi discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the determined version of the native advertisement content is … the modified instance of the publisher content page [para 0038-0040, create modified version native advertisement linked in modified publisher content page].
However, Choi does not specifically disclose the overlay covering an entire area of the modified instance of the publisher content page.
Brown discloses wherein the determined version of the native advertisement content is the overlay covering an entire area of the modified instance of the publisher content page [para 0081, 0130, 0134, 0166-0170, determine advertisement state (read: version) presenting advertisement overlaid on top of entire website webpage, where advertisement is embedded in website webpage].
Choi and Brown are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of browser advertisement interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determined version of a native advertisement for a modified instance of a publisher content page as disclosed by Choi with an overlay covering an entire page area as disclosed by Brown with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Choi as described above to provide greater media value to advertisers [para 0130].
As to claim 8, Choi discloses the system of claim 7, wherein … the modified instance of the publisher content page includes a logo or other identifying information associated with a publisher of the publisher content page [Fig. 3, para 0025, 0035-0036, modified publisher content page includes publisher frame including publisher logo.
However, Choi does not specifically disclose the overlay covering the entire area of the modified instance of the publisher content page.
Brown discloses the overlay covering the entire area of the modified instance of the publisher content page [para 0081, 0130, 0134, present advertisement overlaid on top of entire website webpage, where advertisement is embedded in website webpage].
Choi and Brown are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of browser advertisement interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified instance of a publisher content page as disclosed by Choi with an overlay covering an entire page area as disclosed by Brown with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Choi as described above to greater media value to advertisers [para 0130].
As to claim 9, Choi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the native advertisement content includes an image, an article, a video, or other promotional content [Figs. 2-3, para 0021, 0025, display advertising content including image article or content promoting product or service].
As to claim 10, Choi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the native advertisement content is hidden from being rendered until the requesting client displaying the modified instance of the publisher content page receives the user input associated with the element [Fig. 3, para 0025, 0027, 0041-0043, display advertising content after selection of native ad in modified publisher content page, note ad content is retrieved and not displayed in content page until user selecting ad link and falls under broadest reasonable interpretation of hiding].
As to claim 11, Choi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the executable code is a script [para 0022, 0035, publisher frame houses code including at least JavaScript].
As to claim 12, Choi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the executable code includes at least at least metadata to render the native advertisement content and the native advertisement content [Fig. 3, para 0022, 0025, 0035-0036, publisher frame houses visual layout (read: metadata) used to generate frame and advertising content].
As to claim 13, Choi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the modified instance of the publisher content page includes a header, content of the publisher content page, and at least the native advertisement [Fig. 3, para 0020, 0025-0027, modified publisher content page includes publisher frame including top border, non-advertising publisher content, and native ad].
As to claim 14, Choi discloses the system of claim 1.
However, Choi does not specifically disclose wherein the native advertisement is associated with a winning bid of an auction.
Brown discloses wherein the native advertisement is associated with a winning bid of an auction [para 0110-0111, engagement model displaying advertisement allows bidding on engagement in auction environment, note one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a range of bids placed by advertisers would include a winning bid out of the placed bids (see MPEP 2144.05(I))].
Choi and Brown are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of browser advertisement interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the native advertisement as disclosed by Choi with an advertisement associated with a winning bid of an auction as disclosed by Brown with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Choi as described above to increase advertiser assurance in user engagement [Brown, para 0108-0110].
As to claim 15, Choi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein in response to a selection of the native advertisement, the requesting client is configured to display the native advertising content … [Fig. 3, para 0018, 0020, 0025, 0035, selecting of native ad in publisher content page displayed by client system results in displaying advertising content in publisher frame].
However, Choi does not specifically disclose to display the native advertising content as the overlay covering at least the portion of the modified instance of the publisher content page.
Brown discloses to display the native advertising content as the overlay covering at least the portion of the modified instance of the publisher content page [Figs. 5-6, para 0067, 0087-0088, 0140-0141, display advertisement as covering (read: overlay) website webpage, where advertisement is embedded in website webpage].
Choi and Brown are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of browser advertisement interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify displaying a native advertisement in relation to a portion of a modified instance of a publisher content page as disclosed by Choi with displaying an advertisement as an overlay covering a publisher webpage as disclosed by Brown with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Choi as described above to provide user context awareness [Brown, para 0140].
As to claim 16, Choi discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the requesting client is configured to monitor user behavior while content associated with the selected native advertisement is displayed [Fig. 3, para 0022, 0025, 0035, display advertising content in publisher frame housing tracking code to track (read: monitor) user activity on site after selection of native ad in publisher content page].
As to claim 17, Choi and Brown, combined at least for the reasons above, Choi discloses a method comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 19, Choi and Brown, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the method of claim 17 further comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 20, Choi and Brown, combined at least for the reasons above, Choi discloses a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions [para 0013, claim 20, computer program product embodied in non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer instructions performing method] for: comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi (US 20200356609 A1) generally discloses determining an advertisement version based on a publisher page.
Choi et al. (US 20210042466 A1) generating native content templates for use with publisher content pages.
Choi et al. (US 20210303653 A1) generally discloses native advertisements associated with winning auction bids.
Weiner et al. (US 20190339834 A1) generally discloses modifying publisher content pages to include native advertisements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172