DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the amendment filed on 7/29/26.
None of the claims have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter categories under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, claim 1 recites a method, which constitutes a process. Claim 9 recites a method, which constitutes a process. Claim 15 recites a method, which constitutes a process. Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 depend from claims 1, 9, and 15, respectively, and thus likewise fall within the process category. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claims 1, 9, and 15, in part, describe an invention comprising: generating data indicating a first group of users for presentation of a supplemental content item; determining first video content based on at least one characteristic associated with the first group of users; generating data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content; determining second video content based on at least one characteristic associated with the second group of users; and generating data indicating a third group of users based on at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content.
As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of identifying and targeting ads to a group of users based on a different group of users who previously interacted with that advertisement, which, pursuant to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (advertising and marketing). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: receiving data indicating a portion of a first group of users that interacted with a supplemental content item that was output during output of first video content; receiving data indicating a portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of second video content; causing output of the supplemental content item during output of the first video content; causing sending of the supplemental content item to a plurality of user devices to cause output of the supplemental content item during output of the second video content; causing display of the supplemental content item via at least one device associated with a group of users (claims 6 and 13); and causing output of the supplemental content item during output of a third video content item (claim 16). The Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.").
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including: at least one "computing device," including a "computing device associated with a content delivery network," for receiving data, generating data indicating groups of users, and causing output and sending of the supplemental content item; a "plurality of user devices" for outputting the supplemental content item; and a "device associated with" a group of users for displaying the supplemental content item. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014), 110 USPQ2d 1977, 1983 (2014).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Looking at the elements individually and in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field; apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease; apply the judicial exception with a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., generic computers connected to a network). Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, and their collective functions are merely facilitated by generic computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified above, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Receiving or transmitting data over a network. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Displaying or presenting data. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception, and claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Next, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 depend from claims 1, 9, and 15, respectively, and include all limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional elements sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Specifically:
Claim 2 further recites wherein the second group of users comprises a modified target audience, and wherein determining the second group of users comprises modifying an initial target audience associated with the supplemental content item. This limitation adds further detail regarding how the second group of users is determined, amounting to an additional non-structural detail that further defines the contours of the abstract idea without meaningfully limiting it.
Claims 3, 10, and 18 further recite wherein the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content comprises at least one of: at least one user of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item for an amount of time that satisfies a threshold; at least one user of the first group of users that viewed the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that clicked on the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that purchased at least one of a product or a service associated with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that called or messaged a telephone number associated with the supplemental content item; or at least one user of the first group of users that visited a web address associated with the supplemental content item. Claim 19 further recites wherein the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content comprises at least one of: at least one user of the second group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the second group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item for an amount of time that satisfies a threshold; at least one user of the second group of users that viewed the supplemental content item; at least one user of the second group of users that clicked on the supplemental content item; at least one user of the second group of users that purchased at least one of a product or a service associated with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the second group of users that called or messaged a telephone number associated with the supplemental content item; or at least one user of the second group of users that visited a web address associated with the supplemental content item. These limitations further define the types of user interactions evaluated within the abstract idea and do not meaningfully limit it.
Claims 4 and 11 further recite wherein generating the data indicating the second group of users further comprises: adding at least one user to the first group of users, wherein the at least one added user is associated with at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content. These limitations add further detail regarding how the second group of users is generated, amounting to additional non-structural details that further define the contours of the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 12 further recite wherein the second group of users does not comprise the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content, and claim 17 further recites wherein the second group of users does not comprise the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content, and wherein the third group of users does not comprise the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content. These limitations further define the membership of the groups of users within the abstract idea and do not meaningfully limit it.
Claim 6 further recites wherein causing the output of the supplemental content item during output of the second video content comprises causing display of the supplemental content item via at least one device associated with the second group of users, and claim 13 further recites wherein causing output of the supplemental content item during output of the first video content comprises causing display of the supplemental content item via at least one device associated with the first group of users, and wherein causing output of the supplemental content item during output of the second video content comprises causing display of the supplemental content item via at least one device associated with the second group of users. These limitations recite insignificant extra-solution activity performed on a generic device, as identified above.
Claim 7 further recites wherein at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the first group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the first video content and the at least one characteristic associated with the second group of users each comprise at least one of age, gender, occupation, years of home ownership, household size, income, geographic location, family size, or media consumption habits, and claim 20 further recites wherein the at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content comprises at least one of age, gender, occupation, years of home ownership, household size, income, geographic location, family size, or media consumption habits. These limitations further define the categories of data analyzed within the abstract idea and amount to additional non-structural details.
Claims 8 and 14 further recite wherein the supplemental content item comprises an advertisement. These limitations further specify the type of content targeted within the abstract idea and do not meaningfully limit it.
Claim 16 further recites causing output of the supplemental content item during output of a third video content item, wherein the third video content item is determined based on at least one characteristic associated with the third group of users. The determination of the third video content item further defines the abstract idea, and the causing of output is insignificant extra-solution activity, as identified above.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-3, 6-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzaro (US 2012/0278161 A1) in view of Passantino et al. (US 11,361,332 B2).
Claim 1: Lazzaro discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by at least one computing device associated with a content delivery network, data indicating a portion of a first group of users that interacted with a supplemental content item that was output during output of first video content (Paragraphs 0018, 0063, 0065; FIG. 6, steps 602-604. The server complex, which is operable with a content delivery server, delivers an interactive advertisement to the user devices of audience members during a first content offering and receives click-through responses transmitted from those user devices, from which the click-through detector determines the usage set of audience members who positively clicked through the advertisement during the first content offering.);
generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users (Paragraphs 0071, 0077. The database-mining engine determines content offerings where the usage set was co-mingled and then generates a list of probable times and channels where viewership is likely by viewers having demographics similar to those of the usage group, repeating this in multiple iterations to increase the pool.); and
causing, by the at least one computing device, sending of the supplemental content item to a plurality of user devices to cause output of the supplemental content item during output of second video content, wherein the second video content is determined based on at least one characteristic associated with the second group of users (Paragraphs 0077, 0079, 0105; FIG. 6, steps 608-610. The advertising placement opportunity generator schedules the initial interactive advertisement for delivery to user devices during future content offerings identified from the times and channels where viewers having demographics similar to those of the usage group are likely to be viewing.).
Lazzaro does not appear to explicitly disclose generating the data indicating the second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users.
Passantino, however, discloses generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users (Col. 2, ll. 6-12, 43-45; Col. 7, ll. 2-9; Col. 9, ll. 41-54; FIG. 4A, step 420. The list manager processes updates to add or remove entries from a targeted list synchronized to the target audiences, generating an updated audience. A lead is on the pricing-page list because the lead visited the pricing page, and the list manager removes that lead once more than ten days have passed since the lead's last visit. Likewise, a lead identified as a potential vacuum buyer and shown vacuum advertisements should no longer be shown those advertisements after purchasing one.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lazzaro's generation of a new audience group to remove, from that audience, users who have already interacted with the supplemental content item, as taught by Passantino. One would have been motivated to do this in order to avoid continuing to deliver an advertisement to users for whom it has become no longer relevant (Col. 2, ll. 6-12, 32-35).
Claim 2: The Lazzaro/Passantino combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses wherein the second group of users comprises a modified target audience, and wherein determining the second group of users comprises modifying an initial target audience associated with the supplemental content item (Paragraphs 0062, 0077. The advertising selector selects the interactive advertisement for delivery to the audience of a scheduled content offering, and the database-mining engine thereafter modifies that audience by generating, over multiple iterations, a pool of viewers having demographics similar to those of the usage group.).
The rationale for combining Passantino with Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 3 and 10: The Lazzaro/Passantino combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses wherein the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content comprises at least one of: at least one user of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item for an amount of time that satisfies a threshold; at least one user of the first group of users that viewed the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that clicked on the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that purchased at least one of a product or a service associated with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that called or messaged a telephone number associated with the supplemental content item; or at least one user of the first group of users that visited a web address associated with the supplemental content item (Paragraphs 0059, 0063, 0065. The click-through interaction feature permits a user to select "yes" to view additional content associated with the interactive advertisement, and the click-through detector determines the usage set from the positive click-through responses, i.e., users of the first group who clicked on the supplemental content item.).
The rationale for combining Passantino with Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 6: The Lazzaro/Passantino combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses wherein causing the output of the supplemental content item during output of the second video content comprises causing display of the supplemental content item via at least one device associated with the second group of users (Paragraphs 0079, 0109; FIG. 7, block 743. The advertising placement opportunity generator schedules the interactive advertisement for delivery by the advertising delivery manager during the future content offering, and the interactive advertisement appears as an overlay on the content offering presented on a monitor operable with a user device.).
The rationale for combining Passantino with Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 7: The Lazzaro/Passantino combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses wherein at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the first group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the first video content and the at least one characteristic associated with the second group of users each comprise at least one of age, gender, occupation, years of home ownership, household size, income, geographic location, family size, or media consumption habits (Paragraphs 0023, 0071, 0077. The database-mining engine evaluates the content offerings, times, and channels in which the usage group co-mingled and the times and channels where viewers having similar demographics are likely to be viewing, targeting users having similar viewership patterns, i.e., media consumption habits.).
The rationale for combining Passantino with Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 8 and 14: The Lazzaro/Passantino combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses wherein the supplemental content item comprises an advertisement (Paragraph 0032. The advertisements include banner advertisements overlaid on content offerings, interstitial advertisements inserted between portions of the content, and parallel advertisements presented beside the content.).
The rationale for combining Passantino with Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 9: Lazzaro discloses a method comprising:
generating, by at least one computing device, data indicating a first group of users for presentation of a supplemental content item (Paragraphs 0077, 0104, 0106. The database-mining engine generates a pool of viewers having demographics similar to those of the usage group, and an interactive advertisement is selected for inclusion with the future content offering determined for that audience, which serves as the first content offering when the method repeats.);
causing, by the at least one computing device, output of the supplemental content item during output of first video content, wherein the first video content is determined based on at least one characteristic associated with the first group of users (Paragraphs 0105, 0106, 0109. The interactive advertisement is scheduled for delivery during the future content offering selected from the times and channels where viewers having demographics similar to those of the usage group are likely to be viewing, and it appears as an overlay on that content offering, which is the first video content when the method repeats.);
receiving, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content (Paragraphs 0063, 0065, 0106. When the method repeats, the click-through detector again determines the usage set from the click-through responses transmitted from the user devices during that content offering.);
generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users (Paragraphs 0077, 0106. The method again performs steps 607-610 from the new click-through responses, generating a pool of viewers having demographics similar to those of the new usage group.); and
causing, by the at least one computing device, sending of the supplemental content item to a plurality of user devices to cause output of the supplemental content item during output of second video content, wherein the second video content is determined based on at least one characteristic associated with the second group of users (Paragraphs 0079, 0105, 0106; FIG. 6, steps 608-610. The advertising placement opportunity generator schedules the interactive advertisement for delivery to user devices during the additional future content offering identified from the times and channels where the similar viewers are likely to be viewing.).
Lazzaro does not appear to explicitly disclose generating the data indicating the second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users.
Passantino, however, discloses generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users (Col. 2, ll. 6-12, 43-45; Col. 7, ll. 2-9; Col. 9, ll. 41-54; FIG. 4A, step 420. The list manager removes a lead who visited the pricing page from the targeted list once more than ten days have passed since that visit, and a lead shown vacuum advertisements should no longer be shown them after purchasing one, generating an updated audience.).
The rationale for combining Passantino with Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 13: The Lazzaro/Passantino combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses wherein causing output of the supplemental content item during output of the first video content comprises causing display of the supplemental content item via at least one device associated with the first group of users, and wherein causing output of the supplemental content item during output of the second video content comprises causing display of the supplemental content item via at least one device associated with the second group of users (Paragraphs 0079, 0108, 0109; FIG. 7, blocks 741 and 743. The server complex delivers the first content offering and interactive advertisement to the user devices of the audience, where the advertisement appears as an overlay on the content offering presented on a monitor operable with a user device, and the advertisement is thereafter delivered to user devices during the future content offering.).
The rationale for combining Passantino with Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzaro/Passantino in view of Cheng et al. (US 10,672,029 B2).
Claims 4 and 11: The Lazzaro/Passantino combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly disclose that generating the data indicating the second group of users further comprises adding at least one user to the first group of users, wherein the at least one added user is associated with at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content.
Cheng, however, discloses wherein generating the data indicating the second group of users further comprises: adding at least one user to the first group of users, wherein the at least one added user is associated with at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content (Col. 11, ll. 16-47; Col. 11, l. 48 to Col. 12, l. 34; FIG. 3, steps 310-320. The social networking system identifies users who interacted with an advertisement and identifies a cluster group that adds additional users having characteristics matching or similar to the characteristics of those users.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Lazzaro/Passantino combination to add, to the group of users, additional users having characteristics similar to those of the users who interacted with the supplemental content item, as taught by Cheng. One would have been motivated to do this in order to increase the number of users who may be presented with the content item to include users who have not explicitly associated themselves with its subject (Col. 13, ll. 58-60).
Claims 5 and 12: The Lazzaro/Passantino combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second group of users does not comprise the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content.
Cheng, however, discloses wherein the second group of users does not comprise the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content (Col. 13, ll. 7-45; Col. 13, l. 46 to Col. 14, l. 12; Col. 14, l. 36 to Col. 15, l. 2; FIG. 4. The social networking system selects additional users from the cluster group and makes those selected additional users eligible for presentation of the content, the cluster group of additional users being distinct from the target group of users who interacted with the advertisement.).
The rationale for combining Cheng with Passantino and Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 15: Lazzaro discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by at least one computing device, data indicating a portion of a first group of users that interacted with a supplemental content item that was output during output of first video content (Paragraphs 0063, 0065; FIG. 6, steps 602-604. The server complex receives click-through responses transmitted from the user devices, from which the click-through detector determines the usage set of audience members who positively clicked through the interactive advertisement during the first content offering.);
generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users (Paragraphs 0071, 0077. The database-mining engine generates a list of probable times and channels where viewership is likely by viewers having demographics similar to those of the usage group, repeating this in multiple iterations to increase the pool.); and
receiving, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of second video content (Paragraphs 0079, 0106. When the interactive advertisement is delivered with the future content offering, subsequent click-through rates and interactions are delivered to the business management module, and the method repeats its usage determination from the new click-through responses.).
Lazzaro does not appear to explicitly disclose generating the data indicating the second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users.
Passantino, however, discloses generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users (Col. 2, ll. 6-12, 43-45; Col. 7, ll. 2-9; Col. 9, ll. 41-54; FIG. 4A, step 420. The list manager removes a lead who visited the pricing page from the targeted list once more than ten days have passed since that visit, and a lead shown vacuum advertisements should no longer be shown them after purchasing one, generating an updated audience.).
The Lazzaro/Passantino combination does not appear to explicitly disclose generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a third group of users based on at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content.
Cheng, however, discloses generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a third group of users based on at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content (Col. 11, ll. 16-47; Col. 11, l. 48 to Col. 12, l. 34; Col. 13, l. 46 to Col. 14, l. 12; FIG. 3, steps 310-370. The social networking system identifies users who were presented with and interacted with an advertisement, generates a cluster group of additional users based on the characteristics of those users, and makes selected additional users eligible for presentation of content.).
The rationale for combining Cheng with Passantino and Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 16: The Lazzaro/Passantino/Cheng combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses causing output of the supplemental content item during output of a third video content item, wherein the third video content item is determined based on at least one characteristic associated with the third group of users (Paragraphs 0077, 0105, 0106; FIG. 6, steps 607-610. When the method repeats, it again performs steps 607-610 from the new click-through responses, determining additional future content offerings from the times and channels where viewers having demographics similar to the new usage group are likely to be viewing, and it schedules the interactive advertisement for delivery during that future content offering.).
The rationale for combining Cheng with Passantino and Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 17: The Lazzaro/Passantino/Cheng combination discloses those limitations cited above. Cheng further discloses wherein the second group of users does not comprise the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content, and wherein the third group of users does not comprise the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content (Col. 13, ll. 7-45; Col. 13, l. 46 to Col. 14, l. 12; Col. 14, l. 36 to Col. 15, l. 2; FIG. 4. The social networking system selects additional users from the cluster group for presentation of content, the cluster group of additional users being distinct from the target group of users who were presented with and interacted with the advertisement, so that each group generated from a prior group's interactions comprises additional users rather than the prior group's interacting users.).
The rationale for combining Cheng with Passantino and Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 18: The Lazzaro/Passantino/Cheng combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses wherein the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content comprises at least one of: at least one user of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item for an amount of time that satisfies a threshold; at least one user of the first group of users that viewed the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that clicked on the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that purchased at least one of a product or a service associated with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that called or messaged a telephone number associated with the supplemental content item; or at least one user of the first group of users that visited a web address associated with the supplemental content item (Paragraphs 0059, 0063, 0065. The click-through detector determines the usage set from positive click-through responses, i.e., users of the first group who clicked on the supplemental content item.).
The rationale for combining Cheng with Passantino and Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 19: The Lazzaro/Passantino/Cheng combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses wherein the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content comprises at least one of: at least one user of the second group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the second group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item for an amount of time that satisfies a threshold; at least one user of the second group of users that viewed the supplemental content item; at least one user of the second group of users that clicked on the supplemental content item; at least one user of the second group of users that purchased at least one of a product or a service associated with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the second group of users that called or messaged a telephone number associated with the supplemental content item; or at least one user of the second group of users that visited a web address associated with the supplemental content item (Paragraphs 0079, 0106. When the interactive advertisement is delivered with the future content offering, subsequent click-through rates and interactions are received and the usage set is determined from the new positive click-through responses, i.e., users of the second group who clicked on the supplemental content item.).
The rationale for combining Cheng with Passantino and Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 20: The Lazzaro/Passantino/Cheng combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses wherein the at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content comprises at least one of age, gender, occupation, years of home ownership, household size, income, geographic location, family size, or media consumption habits (Paragraphs 0023, 0077, 0106. When the method repeats, the database-mining engine again evaluates the times and channels in which the new usage group co-mingled, targeting users having similar viewership patterns, i.e., media consumption habits.).
The rationale for combining Cheng with Passantino and Lazzaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not cited in the above rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant's disclosures:
Kuzma et al. (US 10,977,692), directed to a digital advertising system.
Selinger et al. (US 10,748,159), directed to a method of contextual analysis and control of content item selection.
Pettit et al. (US 11,567,651), directed to a system and user interfaces for rapid analysis of viewership information.
Hasson et al. (20150348109), directed to intent-driven targeting in social network advertising.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the Step 2A, Prong One analysis conflates Prong One with Prong Two because it identifies what the claims are "directed to" rather than identifying specific claim language that recites a judicial exception (Remarks, pages 8-9). These arguments are not persuasive. The rejection identifies the specific limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 15 that set forth the judicial exception. These include generating data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users, and determining second video content based on at least one characteristic associated with the second group of users. The rejection then explains why those limitations fall within the method of organizing human activity grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1); MPEP § 2106.04(a). The rejection concludes that the claims recite a judicial exception, which is the Prong One inquiry, and it separately addresses integration into a practical application under Prong Two.
Next, Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an advertisement, only a "supplemental content item." Applicant contends that dependent claim 8's recitation of an advertisement confirms that claim 1 is not so limited, and that the rejection therefore improperly reads limitations from claim 8 and the specification into claim 1 (Remarks, pages 9-10). These arguments are not persuasive. Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2111; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Applicant's specification consistently describes the supplemental content item as an advertisement. It introduces the invention as identifying "[a]n audience for a supplemental content item (e.g., an advertisement)" (Paragraph 0002). It explains that the supplemental content "may comprise one or more advertisements, such as advertisements for products or services offered by third parties, upcoming television and movie releases, or products or services offered by the content providers themselves" (Paragraph 0015), and that it "may include, for example, one or more addressable (e.g., targeted) advertisements" (Paragraph 0024). In describing the supplemental content item 204 with which a user interacts, the specification again explains that the item "may comprise an advertisement for the product or service" (Paragraph 0070). The specification does not describe any supplemental content item other than an advertisement. Read in light of this disclosure, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the supplemental content item of claim 1 plainly encompasses an advertisement, and Applicant's attempt to characterize the claims as unrelated to advertising is inconsistent with Applicant's own disclosure. Claim 8 does not alter this conclusion. Claim differentiation establishes, at most, that claim 1 is broader than claim 8. It does not establish that claim 1 excludes the very embodiment the specification describes. Furthermore, the categorization does not depend on the label Applicant assigns to the content item. The claims identify users who interacted with a content item presented during video content, generate a new group of users by removing some of those users, and select the video content during which to present the item to the new group based on that group's characteristics. Selecting the audience for a content item, and the programming in which to present it, is an advertising and marketing activity whether or not the item is called an advertisement. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Cf. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tailoring content presented to a user based on information about the user is an abstract idea). Considered as a whole and in light of the specification, the claims describe targeted advertising: identifying which viewers responded to an advertisement presented during video content, adjusting the target audience based on those responses, and placing the advertisement in video content selected for the adjusted audience (Paragraphs 0002, 0015, 0024, 0070).
Applicant also argues that the claims do not recite a mental process (Remarks, page 10). The rejection set forth above relies on the method of organizing human activity grouping and does not rely on the mental process grouping. Applicant's arguments directed to the mental process grouping are therefore moot.
Applicant further argues that, even if the claims recite a judicial exception, they integrate it into a practical application. Applicant contends that the generated data is used to determine subsequent video content and to control delivery of the supplemental content item to a plurality of user devices, and that the rejection improperly analyzes the limitations individually rather than considering the claim as a whole (Remarks, pages 11-12, citing MPEP § 2106.05(e)). These arguments are not persuasive.
The rejection considers the additional elements both individually and in combination. The determination of second video content based on at least one characteristic associated with the second group of users is part of the abstract idea itself, and the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement or meaningful limitation required for integration. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). The remaining additional elements are a generic computing device performing the abstract idea and the sending of the supplemental content item to user devices for output. These amount, respectively, to mere instructions to apply the exception on a computer and to insignificant output of the result of the abstract targeting. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g). The claims do not recite any change to how the content delivery network or the user devices operate. They use the result of the abstract analysis to decide what content is delivered, which does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-56 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant additionally argues that determining the second video content and causing sending of the supplemental content item are not insignificant extra-solution activity because they are central to the claimed invention and define how the abstract idea is applied (Remarks, page 12). These arguments are not persuasive. As set forth in the rejection, the determination of the second video content is part of the abstract idea, not an extra-solution element. Whether the sending step is insignificant extra-solution activity turns on the considerations set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(g), including whether the limitation imposes meaningful limits on the claim and whether it amounts to mere data output. It does not turn on the importance Applicant attributes to the limitation. The claims recite sending the supplemental content item to user devices for output at a high level of generality, with no particular manner of transmission, and the rejection supports the conventional nature of that activity with the evidence required under Berkheimer.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is therefore maintained.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that Passantino does not disclose generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users. Applicant contends that Passantino removes a lead who has not visited a pricing page within a time frame, which Applicant characterizes as the removal of users who have not interacted rather than users who have (Remarks, pages 13-14). These arguments are not persuasive.
First, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP § 2145(IV). The rejection relies on Lazzaro for the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item output during the first video content (Paragraphs 0063, 0065). It relies on Passantino for generating an updated group of users by removing users from an existing audience (Col. 2, ll. 43-45; Col. 9, ll. 41-54). Passantino doesn’t need to disclose users interacting with a supplemental content item output during video content by itself.
Second, Applicant's characterization of Passantino is inaccurate. A lead on Passantino's pricing-page list is on that list because the lead visited the pricing page, and the list manager removes that lead once more than ten days have passed since the lead's last visit (Col. 7, ll. 2-9). The removed lead is therefore a user who interacted.
Third, Passantino expressly teaches removing users from an audience after their interaction. Passantino explains that a lead who was shown advertisements for vacuum cleaners should no longer be shown those advertisements after purchasing one (Col. 2, ll. 6-12), and it identifies continual audience updating as the solution to delivering no-longer-relevant content (Col. 2, ll. 32-35). Purchasing is among the interactions recited in dependent claims 3, 10, and 18. Passantino therefore teaches removing from an audience users whose interaction makes further delivery unnecessary, which is the teaching the combination applies to Lazzaro's usage set of users who interacted with the advertisement.
Applicant further argues that because neither Lazzaro nor Passantino teaches the claimed data indicating a second group of users, the combination cannot teach causing, by the at least one computing device, sending of the supplemental content item to a plurality of user devices to cause output of the supplemental content item during output of second video content, wherein the second video content is determined based on at least one characteristic associated with the second group of users (Remarks, page 14). These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. Moreover, Lazzaro discloses scheduling the advertisement for delivery to user devices during future content offerings identified from the times and channels where viewers having demographics similar to those of the usage group are likely to be viewing (Paragraphs 0077, 0079, 0105).
With respect to claims 4-5, 11-12, and 15-20, Applicant argues that Cheng does not cure the deficiencies of Lazzaro and Passantino, and that claim 15 and the dependent claims are patentable for at least the same reasons (Remarks, page 15). These arguments are not persuasive. For the reasons set forth above, the Lazzaro/Passantino combination is not deficient, and Applicant presents no separate argument directed to the limitations for which Cheng is relied upon. A general allegation of patentability that does not specifically point out how the claims distinguish over the references does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b).
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621
