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 inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 7, 14, and 21 are canceled.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to recite the limitation “displaying, on a screen of the user device and after creating the advertising campaign information by using the machine learning algorithm, information describing: a campaign calendar identifying the advertising campaign is unpaid for; and a request for payment information”. However, the specification fails to reasonably convey displaying the information after creating the advertising campaign information using the machine learning algorithm. Applicant cites to Figure 3 and paragraphs 11, 18, 25, 89-107, and 109-112 as showing support. However, the Examiner does not find adequate support for displaying the information after creating the advertising campaign information using the machine learning algorithm in these paragraphs or any of the paragraphs or figures. The dependent claims are also rejected based on their dependency.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A computer-implemented method for scheduling automated information delivery to a user device, at least a portion of the method being performed by a computing device comprising at least one tangible processor, the method comprising:
receiving, automatically via an application programming interface executed by the at least one tangible processor, information describing:
demographics of potential hotel guests;
a geographic location of the potential hotel guests;
pricing for room rental in the hotel;
a uniform resource locator of a hotel website describing amenities of the hotel and at least one image of the hotel;
user input describing a characteristic of a target audience of the advertising campaign; and
user input describing a budget for the advertising campaign;
creating, using a machine learning algorithm processing the received information, advertising campaign information, wherein the information describing the advertising campaign comprises:
instructions configured to direct an Internet search website to automatically display advertisements for the hotel that accompany search results displayed by the Internet search website, between an advertising campaign start date and an advertising campaign end date, and to the potential hotel guests in the geographic location of the potential hotel guests;
the information describing the amenities of the hotel and the at least one image of the hotel;
the information describing the pricing for room rental in the hotel; and information describing a competitive advertising budget;
sending the instructions configured to direct the Internet search website to automatically display the advertisements for the hotel to a server device configured to automatically cause the advertisements for the hotel to be displayed on the user device; and
displaying, on a screen of the user device and after creating the advertising campaign information by using the machine learning algorithm, information describing:
a campaign calendar identifying the advertising campaign is unpaid for; and
a request for payment information.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing is related to commerce and economy, a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
In Step 2A Prong Two, these additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-6 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claims 2-3 recites the additional element of “using the uniform resource locator”. Claim 4 recites the additional elements of “via a user interface device”, “email”, “the uniform resource locator of the hotel website”, and “in a tangible non-transient storage device”. Claim 5 recites the additional elements of “user interface device” and “in a tangible non-transient storage device”. Claim 6 recites the additional element of “on a screen of the user device”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 8 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., certain method of organizing human activities, and mental processes). Claim 28 recites the additional elements of “A system for […], the system comprising: a physical processor; and a memory communicably coupled to the physical processor and storing instructions configured to cause the physical processor to”, “automated”, “device”, “automatically via an application programming interface executed by the at least one tangible processor”, “a uniform resource locator of a hotel website”, “a machine learning algorithm processing”, “an Internet search website”, “automatically”, “by the Internet search website”, “to a server device configured to automatically”, “on the user device”, “on a screen of the user device”, and “by using the machine learning algorithm”. However, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 9-14 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 8 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of “wherein the memory further stores instructions configured to cause the physical processor to” and “using the uniform resource locator”. Claim 10 recites the additional elements of “wherein the memory further stores instructions to cause the physical processor to” and “user interface device”. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of “wherein the memory further stores instructions to cause the physical processor to”, “via a user interface device”, “email”, “the uniform resource locator of the hotel website”, “via the user interface device”, and “in a tangible non-transient storage device”. Claim 12 recites the additional elements “wherein the memory further stores instructions to cause the physical processor to”, “via a user interface device”, and “in a tangible non-transient storage device”. Claim 13 recites the additional elements of “wherein the memory further stores instructions to cause the physical processor to” and “on a screen of the user device”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 15 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., certain method of organizing human activities, and mental processes). Claim 28 recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to”, “automatically via an application programming interface executed by the at least one processor”, “a uniform resource locator of a hotel website”, “a machine learning algorithm processing”, “an Internet search website”, “automatically”, “by the Internet search website”, “to a server device configured to automatically”, “on the user device”, “on a screen of the user device”, and “by using the machine learning algorithm”. However, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 16-20 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 15 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 16 recites the additional elements of “wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the computing device to” and “using the uniform resource locator”. Claim 17 recites the additional elements of “wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the computing device to” and “user interface device”. Claim 18 recites the additional elements of “wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the computing device to”, “via a user interface device”, “email”, “the uniform resource locator of the hotel website”, “via the user interface device”, and “in a tangible non-transient storage device”. Claim 19 recites the additional elements “wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the computing device to”, “via a user interface device”, and “in a tangible non-transient storage device”. Claim 20 recites the additional elements of “wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the computing device to” and “on a screen of the user device”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubespin et al. (US 2020/0090220 A1, hereinafter “Aubespin”), in view of Collins et al. (US 2007/0033105 A1, hereinafter “Collins”), in view of Underwood et al. (US 2018/0357655 A1, hereinafter “Underwood”), in view of Ye et al. (US 2015/0206169 A1, hereinafter “Ye”), in further view of Olivieri (US 2018/0330403 A1, hereinafter “Olivieri”).
As per Claim 1, Aubespin discloses A computer-implemented method for scheduling automated information delivery to a user device, at least a portion of the method being performed by a computing device comprising at least one tangible processor, the method comprising (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitation is not given patentable weight because it is intended use language. However, see at least ¶ 5. Also see paragraphs below.):
receiving, […] by the at least one tangible processor, information describing (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least ¶ 17 “In some implementations, an advertisement system is provided that allows, among other things, an advertiser to implement an advertising campaign by specifying (implicitly or explicitly) various advertisement criteria using, for example, templates. The templates in turn are used to automatically create advertisements in accordance with detected events and the advertisement criteria.” Also see at least Figure 5A and paragraphs below.):
a geographic location of the potential hotel guests (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least ¶¶ 31-33. Also see paragraphs above.);
pricing for room rental in the hotel (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least ¶¶ 31-33. Also see paragraphs above.);
a uniform resource locator of a hotel website describing amenities of the hotel […] (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitation is not given patentable weight because it is nonfunctional descriptive material. However, for the sake of advancing prosecution, see at least ¶ 56. Also see paragraphs above.);
user input describing a budget for the advertising campaign (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least Figure 5A. Also see paragraphs above.);
creating, using […] the received information, advertising campaign information, wherein the information describing the advertising campaign comprises (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least ¶ 17 and Figure 5A. Also see paragraphs above.):
instructions configured to direct an Internet search website to automatically display advertisements for the hotel that accompany search results displayed by the Internet search website, […] and an advertising campaign end date, and to the potential hotel guests in the geographic location of the potential hotel guests (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least ¶¶ 5, 21, 26-28, 45, 57, and 61-62. Also see paragraphs above.);
the information describing the amenities of the hotel […] (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitation is not given patentable weight because it is nonfunctional descriptive material. However, for the sake of advancing prosecution, see at least ¶ 56. Also see paragraphs above.);
the information describing the pricing for room rental in the hotel (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least ¶¶ 31-33. Also see paragraphs above.); and
information describing a competitive advertising budget (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least ¶ 55 and Figure 5A. also see paragraphs above.);
sending the instructions configured to direct the Internet search website to automatically display the advertisements for the hotel to a server device configured to automatically cause the advertisements for the hotel to be displayed on the user device (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is intended use language that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least ¶¶ 5, 21, 26-28, and 61-62. Also see paragraphs above.)
displaying, on a screen of the user device, […], information describing: a campaign calendar (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least element 58 of Figure 5A shows a calendar tool that enables a user to specify an end date for an advertising campaign. Also see at least Figures 5A-5F which show various campaign related information on a screen of the user device. Also see at least ¶ 17 and citations above.).
While Aubespin discloses all of the above limitations, including receiving various information that is used to automatically generate advertisements, Aubespin does not appear to explicitly disclose that the information is received using an application programming interface. Therefore, Aubespin does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitation automatically via an application programming interface executed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Collins teaches this limitation in at least ¶¶ 9-10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the receiving of various information that is used to automatically generate advertisements as disclosed by Aubespin, to include an application programming interface as taught by Collins, because doing so would enable an advertiser to input advertisement information including criteria indicating when presentation of the advertisement is desired by the advertiser and a bid for presentation of the advertisement when the criteria is met (Collins, ¶ 9). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While Aubespin discloses all of the above limitations, including receiving various information that is used to automatically generate advertisements, Aubespin does not appear to explicitly disclose demographics of potential hotel guests; and user input describing a characteristic of a target audience of the advertising campaign. However, in the same field of endeavor, Collins teaches these limitations in at least ¶¶ 50 and 98. Also see at least ¶¶ 9-10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the receiving of various information that is used to automatically generate advertisements as disclosed by Aubespin, to include demographic information and a targeted audience for the advertising campaign as taught by Collins, because doing so would ensure that the advertisement is only displayed when a user meets an advertiser’s targeting criteria (Collins, ¶¶ 9-10). The combination would also target users who are likely to be interested in the advertisement. The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations are nonfunctional descriptive material. However, for the sake of advancing prosecution, all limitations are considered and addressed.
While Aubespin discloses all of the above limitations, including directing an Internet search website to automatically display advertisements, Aubespin does not appear to explicitly disclose [displaying the advertisement] between an advertising campaign start date [to an advertising campaign end date]. However, in the same field of endeavor, Collins teaches this limitation in at least ¶ 159 “entire period of campaign [i.e., time period of advertising campaign]”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the directing of an Internet search website to automatically display the advertisement as disclosed by Aubespin, to include a campaign start date and end date as taught by Collins, because doing so would ensure that the advertisement is only displayed when a user meets an advertiser’s targeting criteria (Collins, ¶¶ 9-10). The combination would also prevent an advertiser’s budget from being spend within a short period of time. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A). The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations are nonfunctional descriptive material. However, for the sake of advancing prosecution, all limitations are considered and addressed.
While the combination of Aubespin/Collins teaches all of the above limitations, including receiving various information from an advertiser that is used to automatically create advertisements, they do not appear to explicitly teach [using] a machine learning algorithm processing [to create an advertisement] and [creating advertisements] by using the machine learning algorithm. However, in the same field of endeavor, Underwood teaches these limitations in at least ¶ 53 “ In step 408, process 400 can create various extra campaigns. If process 400 notices that there is inventory which is not selling at the normal rate, it can create campaigns so as to satisfy a customer request. This can occur automatically according to a stored procedure. Various machine learning and/or optimization techniques can be utilized to implement step 408.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the advertisement creation as taught by the combination of Aubespin/Collins as modified above, to include a step of using a machine learning algorithm to create an advertisement as taught by Underwood, for the advantage of creating an advertisement that is likely to have a high click through rate. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While the combination of Aubespin/Collins/Underwood teaches all of the above limitations, they do not appear to explicitly teach [displaying information] and after creating the advertisement campaign information. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ye teaches these limitations in at least ¶ 4 “automatically generating display content.” ¶ 47 “the content items created by the content generation system are advertisements. The advertisements may be display advertisements such as image advertisements, flash advertisements, video advertisements, text-based advertisements, or any combination thereof.” ¶ 48 “For example, content generation system 114 may receive a content generation request from content requestors 104 via network 102. Content generation system 114 may create content items in response to the request and provide the generated content items to content requestors 104 for review or approval.” ¶ 54 “Content requestors 104 may access content generation system 114 to monitor the performance of the third-party content items distributed according to the established campaign parameters. For example, content requestors 104 may access content generation system 114 to review one or more behavior metrics associated with a third-party content item or set of third-party content items. The behavior metrics may describe the interactions between user devices 108 with respect to a distributed third-party content item or set of third-party content items (e.g., number of impressions, number of clicks, number of conversions, an amount spent, etc.). The behavior metrics may be based on user actions logged and processed by an accounting system or a log file processing system.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the displaying of campaign information as taught by the combination of Aubespin/Collins/Underwood as modified above, to include the step of displaying information after creating the advertisement campaign as taught by Ye, because doing so would enable advertisers to monitor the performance of third-party content items distributed according to the established campaign parameters (Ye, ¶ 54). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A). The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight.
While the combination of Aubespin/Collins/Underwood teach all of the above limitations, including automatically creating advertisement based on received information, they do not appear to explicitly teach receiving at least one image. Therefore, they do not appear to explicitly teach the limitations and at least one image of the hotel; and the at least one image of the hotel. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ye teaches these limitations in at least ¶¶ 4, 43, and 51-52. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the automatic advertisement creation as taught by the combination of Aubespin/Collins/Underwood as modified above, to include the step of incorporating an image from an advertiser’s website as taught by Ye, because doing so enable the system to automatically create an advertisement without the need of an advertiser to uploading an image. The combination would also eliminate the need to update a stored image that has become stale. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A). The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitation is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, for the sake of advancing prosecution, all limitations are considered and addressed.
While Aubespin discloses various information on a screen of the user device, including a calendar tool which enables a user to specify an end date of the advertising campaign (see Figure 5A and ¶ 56), the combination of Aubespin/Collins/Underwood/Ye as modified above do not appear to explicitly teach identifying the advertising campaign is unpaid for; and a request for payment. However, in the same field of endeavor, Olivieri teaches these limitations in at least element 25 of Figure 2 displays information on a screen of a user device that indicates that the advertising campaign is unpaid for since the input section 25 is empty. ¶ 18 explains that input section 25 is used as a request for payment for the advertising campaign. Also see ¶¶ 24-26 and Claim 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed to modify the information being displayed on the screen of the user device as taught by the combination of Aubespin/Collins/Underwood/Ye as modified above, to include information identifying the advertising campaign is unpaid for and a request for payment as taught by Olivieri, because doing so would ensure that the advertising costs would not exceed the budget of the advertiser. The combination would also prevent fraud by pausing ad campaigns when a user fails to make required payment (Olivieri, Claim 5). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A). The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitation is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, for the sake of advancing prosecution, all limitations are considered and addressed.
As per Claim 2, while the combination of Aubespin/Collins/Underwood teach all of the above limitations, including automatically creating advertisement based on received information, they do not appear to explicitly teach receiving at least one image. Therefore, they do not appear to explicitly teach the limitation further comprising retrieving, using the uniform resource locator, the information describing the amenities of the hotel and the at least one image of the hotel. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ye teaches this limitation in at least ¶¶ 4, 43, and 51-52. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the automatic advertisement creation as taught by the combination of Aubespin/Collins/Underwood as modified above, to include the step of incorporating an image from an advertiser’s website as taught by Ye, because doing so enable the system to automatically create an advertisement without the need of an advertiser to uploading an image. The combination would also eliminate the need to update a stored image that has become stale. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A). The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitation is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, for the sake of advancing prosecution, all limitations are considered and addressed.
As per Claim 3, Aubespin discloses further comprising receiving, from a user interface device, an instruction to initiate performing the creating the advertising campaign information step (¶ 17 and Figure 5A. Also see paragraphs above.).
As per Claim 5, while Aubespin automatically generates an advertisement based on received information from the advertiser, the combination of Aubespin/Collins do not appear to explicitly teach further comprising: receiving, via a user interface device, additional campaign information describing: an advertising campaign name; and an advertising campaign description; associating the received additional campaign information with the advertising campaign information; and storing, in a tangible non-transient storage device, the received additional campaign information with the advertising campaign information. However, in the same field of endeavor, Underwood teaches these limitations in at least Fig. 8-9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the automatically generated advertisement as taught by the combination of Aubespin/Collins as modified above, to include additional campaign information as taught by Underwood, because doing so would enable an advertiser to quickly identify a particular advertising campaign. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A). The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations are nonfunctional descriptive material. However, for the sake of advancing prosecution, all limitations are considered and addressed.
As per Claim 6, Aubespin discloses further comprising displaying, on a screen of the user device, information describing (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least ¶¶ 31-33. Also see paragraphs above.):
the advertising campaign start date (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least Collins which discloses the limitation “the advertising campaign start date” in at least ¶ 159. The motivation to combine is explained above with respect to claim 1 and is incorporated herein.);
the advertising campaign end date (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least Fig. 5A. Also see paragraphs above.);
the budget for the advertising campaign (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least Fig. 5A. Also see paragraphs above.);
an amount of funds spent to date on the advertising campaign (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least ¶ 55. Also see paragraphs above.);
a number of user inputs received to date as a result of the advertising campaign (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least ¶¶ 31-33. Also see paragraphs above.); and
a campaign calendar identifying the advertising campaign start date (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least Collins which discloses the limitation “the advertising campaign start date” in at least ¶ 159. The motivation to combine is explained above with respect to claim 1 and is incorporated herein.), the advertising campaign end date (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least ¶ 57. Also see paragraphs above.), and all dates therebetween (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, see at least Collins which discloses the limitation “and all dates therebetween” in at least ¶ 159. The motivation to combine is explained above with respect to claim 1 and is incorporated herein.).
While the combination of Aubespin/Collins teaches all of the above limitations, they do not appear to explicitly teach an advertising campaign name. However, in the same field of endeavor, Underwood teaches these limitations in at least Fig. 8-9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the displaying of campaign information as taught by the combination of Aubespin/Collins as modified above, to include an advertising campaign name as taught by Underwood, because doing so would enable an advertiser to quickly identify a particular advertising campaign. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A). The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight.
While the combination of Aubespin/Collins/Underwood/Ye teach all of the above limitations, including displaying various information describing the advertising campaign, they do not appear to explicitly teach a total number of advertisements in the advertising campaign. However, in the same field of endeavor, Olivieri teaches this limitation in at least ¶ 37 and Claim 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the information describing the advertising campaign, to include information about the total number of advertisements in the advertising campaign as taught by Olivieri, because doing so would enable an advertiser to track and evaluate the performance of the advertising campaign. The combination would ensure that the advertisement campaign does not exceed an advertising budget. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A). The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitations is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight.
As per Claims 8 and 15, they recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected using the same rationale.
As per Claims 9 and 16, they recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, they are rejected using the same rationale.
As per Claims 10 and 17, they recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, they are rejected using the same rationale.
As per Claims 12 and 19, they recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, they are rejected using the same rationale.
As per Claims 13 and 20, they recites substantially similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, they are rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubespin in view of Collins, in view of Underwood, in view of Ye, in further view of DeRosa-Grund (US 2020/0074429 A1, hereinafter “DeRosa-Grund”).
As per Claim 4, while Aubespin discloses the receiving of information that is used to automatically create advertisements, Aubespin does not appear to explicitly receive advertiser profile information. Therefore, Aubespin does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving, via a user interface device, user profile information describing: the uniform resource locator of the hotel website [nonfunctional descriptive material]; receiving, via the user interface device, information confirming the user profile information; storing, in response to the receiving the information confirming the user profile information, the user profile information in a tangible non-transient storage device; and enabling the creating the advertising campaign information in response to the receiving the information confirming the user profile information [intended use language]. However, in the same field of endeavor, Collins teaches these limitations in at least ¶¶ 46, 49, 59-62, and 128. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system to automatically create advertisements based on information received from advertisers as disclosed by Aubespin, to include a step of receiving and storing advertiser profile information, because doing so would secure the advertiser’s information (Collins, ¶ 87). The combination would also prevent a user from making unauthorized changes to the advertising campaign. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A). The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitation is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. However, for the sake of advancing prosecution, all limitations are considered and addressed.
While the combination of Aubespin/Collins/Underwood/Ye as modified above teach all of the above limitations, including receiving user profile information, they do not appear to explicitly teach the user profile information describing a username; a user email address [nonfunctional descriptive material]; and a user company [nonfunctional descriptive material]. However, in the same field of endeavor, DeRosa-Grund teaches these limitations in at least ¶ 57. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the receiving of user profile information as taught by the combination of Aubespin/Collins/Underwood/Ye as modified above, to include a username, email address, and user company as taught by DeRosa-Grund, because doing so would prevent a user from making unauthorized changes to the advertising campaign. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claims 11 and 18, they recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, they are rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument A: “The claims are directed to patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they recite a solution to a challenge particular to the Internet and synthesize new information. […] Nor do the Applicant’s claims recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice. In contrast, the Applicant’s claimed combinations recite a solution to a challenge particular to the Internet […]. Unlike the claims in Electric Power Group, the claims in the present application