DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the response to the amendment filed on 12/05/2025. Claims 1, 11, and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-21 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/08/2025 and 11/18/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,816,702 because the patent and the application under examination name the same inventive entity. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in Patent No. 11,816,702 recite the entirety of limitations of claims 1-21 of the instant application. For example, application independent claims 1, 11, and 21 are anticipated by patent independent claims 1, 11, and 20 because patent independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite additional features such as “providing a plurality of user devices each associated with a buyer or seller with access to a centralized transaction platform server based on authentication information provided by the buyer or the seller, wherein the authentication information is verified by one or more integrated third party systems accessible by the buyer or the seller, wherein seller accounts of a plurality of seller third party servers and buyer accounts of a plurality of buyer third party servers are automatically mapped; aggregating a collection of available inventory of the seller systems based on the data regarding the inventory of the seller systems from the one or more integrated third party system, wherein the aggregated inventory includes the mapped seller accounts of the plurality of seller third party servers; creating a third proposal based on the real-time list of real-time digital inventory via a third-party application programming interface (API) integrated to a white-label API customized for a respective integrated third party system associated with the third-party API, wherein the third proposal is associated with a third URL link to a third proposal web page; providing the first proposal, the second proposal, and the third proposal, via the centralized transaction platform server to respective ad server operators without accessing respective third party servers; and automating approval of the first proposal, the second proposal, and the third proposal based on approved workflows, wherein respective digital inventory associated with each proposal is published to a corresponding web page using a corresponding URL link, wherein the approval is synced with the plurality of third party servers and the centralized transaction platform server” wherein application independent claims 1, 11, and 21 do not recite these features and is essentially broader than patent independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Therefore patent claims 1, 11, and 20 of Patent No. 11,816,702 are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application independent claims 1, 11, and 21. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claims 2-10 (Dependent on Claim 1) and claims 12-20 (Dependent on Claim 11) do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,248,973 to Buller in view of U.S. Publication 2020/0202392 to Klockner and in further view of U.S. Patent 7,630,480 to Fleck.
Claims 1-10, 11-20, and 21 are method, system, and computer-readable medium claims, respectively, with substantially indistinguishable features between each group. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Office has grouped the common method, system and non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims in applying applicable prior art.
With respect to Claim 1:
Buller teaches:
A method of integrated order management for digital content campaigns, the method comprising: automatically mapping one or more accounts associated with a plurality of user devices, the accounts in a plurality of third party servers (i.e. automatically mapping two distinct user IDs for a given user associated with ad broker server, wherein the ad broker server retrieves logged data from third party channels) (Buller: Col. 7 Lines 37-45 “Thus, in one embodiment a user ID mapping module 220 performs, for any new user for whom a bid request is received, user ID matching to ascertain an identity of the new user corresponding to the bid request received from the ad exchange 120. To this end, in some embodiments, user ID mapping module 220 performs cookie synchronization with the ad exchange 120 to correlate the two distinct user IDs for a given user respectively used by the ad exchange 120 and the ad broker server 140.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 11 Lines 34-51 “The ad broker server retrieves 420 logged data associated with the viewing user. In some embodiments, the logged data corresponds to the viewing user's online exposure to or engagement with web content including commercial webpages, online representations of services or products having purchase information, or online advertisements. Such data may be obtained from monitoring scripts provided by the ad broker server to various advertisers. In a most general case, the ad broker server receives, via such monitoring scripts made available to the one or more entities associated with a respective advertiser, logged data for multiple users; the logged data owned by the respective advertiser and the logged data including observations or statistics for the users' online activities in conjunction with the respective advertiser. This logged data may correspond to a viewing user purchasing products or engaging with ads for a respective advertiser's products, provided on a third party website or webpage or channel.”);
receiving an access request and inputs provided from a user device of the plurality of user devices at a server system, wherein the user device is associated with a third party online management server associated with a web uniform resource locator (URL), the inputs indicative of one or more custom targeting attributes (i.e. user requests content from ad broker server associated with webpage/link/url, wherein the user device is associated with the ad broker server or third party management server associated with links and wherein the user inputs particular terms that are used as custom targeting attributes) (Buller: Col. 3 Lines 17-35 “When an advertisement opportunity arises-that is, when there is an "advertisement space" to be filled as part of content shown to a viewing user, either in a predefined region of a webpage being viewed by the viewing user, as a separate display (e.g., a "pop-up" or a separate browser tab) in addition to a requested webpage, or as a prelude to the requested page-an ad exchange 120 selects one or more advertisements for display within the advertisement space. Typically, the selected advertisements are associated with content that is relevant to the content or webpage requested by the viewing user or that is otherwise determined to be relevant to the viewing user based on the user's online viewing patterns and activities. For example, an advertisement opportunity may arise in response to the triggering of particular terms entered by a viewing user (e.g., a search field of a search engine). When an ad opportunity arises, the ad exchange 120 may solicit bids for an advertisement space directly from advertisers 110, or from ad broker servers 140 acting on behalf of the advertisers.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 3 Lines 45-51 “The selected advertisements might then be displayed as graphical or textual links with associated textual descriptions located within a sponsored links section of the search results, for example, or other areas. Activating the links, such as by clicking on them, leads a web browser of the user to display the page designated by the link, such as a page where the associated products can be purchased.”);
synchronizing data between the server system and a plurality of databases of the plurality of third party servers associated with each of the user devices in accordance with the mapped accounts, wherein third party servers the online management server tracks real-time metrics regarding current interaction data of digital content inventory associated with a plurality of different seller server systems, the metrics are automatically synched with the server system via an application programming interface (API) (i.e. synchronizing data between the ad broker server and ad exchange server via API, wherein the system tracks statistics regarding user’s interaction with advertisement in real time via API connected to computing network) (Buller: Col. 7 Lines 36-55 “Thus, in one embodiment a user ID mapping module 220 performs, for any new user for whom a bid request is received, user ID matching to ascertain an identity of the new user corresponding to the bid request received from the ad exchange 120. To this end, in some embodiments, user ID mapping module 220 performs cookie synchronization with the ad exchange 120 to correlate the two distinct user IDs for a given user respectively used by the ad exchange 120 and the ad broker server 140. In some instances, if the ad broker server 140 identifies a new user ( one for whom there isn't a previously stored ID mapping), the ad broker server 140 "syncs" with the ad exchange 120 by redirecting the new user's web browser to the ad broker server, thereby obtaining an identity for that new user. A mapping is created of ad broker server user IDs and ad exchange user IDs which can be stored either on the ad exchange server in a database accessible by the ad broker server or (as depicted in FIG. 2 by the user ID mappings 209) at the ad broker server.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 9 Lines 20-46 “Accordingly, the ad broker server 140 comprises a user data assembly module 260 that obtains information about users and aggregates the obtained information in user data 205. User data retrieval module 260 retrieves data known about online users (such as users 130 of FIG. 1) from advertisers 110. Such data includes observations and statistics about the users' online activities. Scripts executing at the advertisers 110 log such observations about the users visiting and browsing web content on the advertisers' web sites. In some embodiments, ad broker server 140 makes scripts available to log online activity data about users. Advertisers 110 embed in, or otherwise use the scripts on, their webpages in order to record data ( e.g., web activity) about users. When a user visits a webpage, the scripts associated with that webpage send the data to the ad broker server 140, which logs the data, and an identification of the advertiser 110 from which the data is received as the "owner" of the data. User data retrieval module 260 receives and optionally processes this data at the ad broker server 140 for further storage and future retrieval. The ad broker server 140 optionally comprises an advertiser application programming interface (API), e.g., a web service or a web-based interface, by which an advertiser 110 can interact with the ad broker server 140 and with other advertisers 110 to set up the collaborative relationships, to participate in a collaborative bid submission process for a viewing user, and the like.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 4 Lines 27-43 “By responding in real time to potentially enormous numbers of bid requests from one or more ad exchanges in real time; by obtaining, computing and leveraging advertising statistics-in part using user data automatically obtained from advertiser websites across the internet; and by evaluating rule satisfaction for collaborating advertisers in order to best respond to the bid requests, the ad broker server 140 enables advertising systems to obtain new efficiencies not possible in traditional (e.g., pre-internet) advertising systems. Communication between the advertisers 110, the ad exchange 120, the users 130, and the ad broker server 140 may be accomplished via a network 150. The network 150 is typically the Internet, but may be any network, including but not limited to a LAN, a MAN, a WAN, a mobile wired or wireless network, a cloud computing network, a private network, or a virtual private network.”);
generating a graphic user interface for another user device associated with the server system, the graphic user interface presenting a real-time list of available digital content options […] (Examiner notes that, according to ¶ [0062] of the Applicant’s specification, “another user” may be a buyer/user other than the seller/advertiser) (i.e. generating an interface presenting available advertisement options or orders in real-time based on the synced data, wherein the available advertisement options are presented to advertisers and users/viewers) (Buller: Figs. 6A and 6B and Col. 14 Lines 14-21 “FIGS. 6A-6B illustrate examples of a user interfaces presented on behalf of the ad broker to an advertiser during a set up phase of a collaborative relationship. As shown in FIG. 6A, a subject advertiser (e.g., the advertiser whose account profile is displayed in FIG. 6A) can view other collaborating advertisers 610 (referred to as 'partners' in FIG. 6A) with whom the subject advertiser has established collaboration relationships.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 4 Lines 27-36 “By responding in real time to potentially enormous numbers of bid requests from one or more ad exchanges in real time; by obtaining, computing and leveraging advertising statistics-in part using user data automatically obtained from advertiser websites across the internet; and by evaluating rule satisfaction for collaborating advertisers in order to best respond to the bid requests, the ad broker server 140 enables advertising systems to obtain new efficiencies not possible in traditional (e.g., pre-internet) advertising systems.”);
receiving one or more order selections from the real-time list presented in the graphic user interface of the other user device (i.e. selecting one or more bids of advertisement order or advertisers to collaborate with advertisement order in real-time, wherein the orders or bid requests are presented in real-time to sellers/advertisers which corresponds to another user device other than buyers/users) (Buller: Cols. 13-14 Lines 22-49 “For example, the ad broker server selects an appropriate bid from the selected advertiser for the advertisement space in response to the bid request by analyzing the retrieved logged data for the viewing user to determine attributes of the bid based on the viewing user's historical ad engagement and exposure statistics contained in the retrieved logged data. Alternatively, or in addition, minimum bid values may be required or recommended to participate in the auction and may be evaluated against ranges of feasible bids provided by the first and the second advertisers to select an appropriate advertiser and/or bid…When another advertiser accepts the subject advertiser's request to collaborate, a collaboration relationship is formed between the other advertiser and the subject advertiser. Alternatively, or in addition, other advertisers may designate the subject advertiser as a potential collaboration advertiser. The ad broker server 140 may then send a request for collaboration from the other advertiser(s) (as illustrated in item 670) to the subject advertiser; the subject advertiser may accept or decline the request for collaboration. Responsive to the subject advertiser accepting another advertiser's request to collaborate, a collaboration relationship is formed between the subject advertiser and the other advertiser.”); and
syncing data regarding an order based on the order selections to the server system in real-time, wherein the order triggers an automatic data sync from the server system to the third party servers (i.e. syncing data regarding bids based on bid selections in real-time, wherein the requests trigger leveraging advertising statistics from ad broker server to advertising parties/servers) (Buller: Col. 7 Lines 30-45 “When a bid request is received for a viewing user, the bid request may identify the viewing user using a user ID of the viewing user on the ad exchange 120. However, the ad broker server 140 typically does not have direct access to ad exchange's data about users, and thus the user ID of the ad exchange is not in itself sufficient for the ad broker server 140 to ascertain information about the viewing user based on the ad exchange's user ID. Thus, in one embodiment a user ID mapping module 220 performs, for any new user for whom a bid request is received, user ID matching to ascertain an identity of the new user corresponding to the bid request received from the ad exchange 120. To this end, in some embodiments, user ID mapping module 220 performs cookie synchronization with the ad exchange 120 to correlate the two distinct user IDs for a given user respectively used by the ad exchange 120 and the ad broker server 140.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 4 Lines 27-43 “By responding in real time to potentially enormous numbers of bid requests from one or more ad exchanges in real time; by obtaining, computing and leveraging advertising statistics-in part using user data automatically obtained from advertiser websites across the internet; and by evaluating rule satisfaction for collaborating advertisers in order to best respond to the bid requests, the ad broker server 140 enables advertising systems to obtain new efficiencies not possible in traditional (e.g., pre-internet) advertising systems. Communication between the advertisers 110, the ad exchange 120, the users 130, and the ad broker server 140 may be accomplished via a network 150. The network 150 is typically the Internet, but may be any network, including but not limited to a LAN, a MAN, a WAN, a mobile wired or wireless network, a cloud computing network, a private network, or a virtual private network.”),
wherein the graphic user interface is updated with the real-time list of available digital content based on the automatically synched data (i.e. GUI is updated with available advertisement options or orders in real-time based on the synced data, wherein the available advertisement options are presented to advertisers and users/viewers) (Buller: Figs. 6A and 6B and Col. 14 Lines 14-21 “FIGS. 6A-6B illustrate examples of a user interfaces presented on behalf of the ad broker to an advertiser during a set up phase of a collaborative relationship. As shown in FIG. 6A, a subject advertiser (e.g., the advertiser whose account profile is displayed in FIG. 6A) can view other collaborating advertisers 610 (referred to as 'partners' in FIG. 6A) with whom the subject advertiser has established collaboration relationships.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 4 Lines 27-36 “By responding in real time to potentially enormous numbers of bid requests from one or more ad exchanges in real time; by obtaining, computing and leveraging advertising statistics-in part using user data automatically obtained from advertiser websites across the internet; and by evaluating rule satisfaction for collaborating advertisers in order to best respond to the bid requests, the ad broker server 140 enables advertising systems to obtain new efficiencies not possible in traditional (e.g., pre-internet) advertising systems.”).
Buller does not explicitly disclose the graphic user interface presenting a real-time list of available digital content options filtered from the synchronized data in accordance with one or more customer filters associated with the custom targeting attributes, wherein one or more of the available digital content options are presented in a packaged group based on associated real-time metrics received from the third party servers.
However, Klockner further discloses the graphic user interface presenting a real-time list of available digital content options filtered from the synchronized data in accordance with one or more customer filters associated with the custom targeting attributes, wherein one or more of the available digital content options are presented in a packaged group based on associated real-time metrics received from the third party servers (i.e. generating interface that displays available content options filtered according to parameters, wherein the available content is provided to the user packaged with price and location of product and wherein the GUI displays advertisements with corresponding POP or proof of performance metrics received at the time of advertisement) (Klockner: ¶¶ [0045] [0046] “The price negotiation module 208 may be configured to act as an intermediate interface for the advertising agency 102 and the vendor 104 for negotiating the prices received from the vendors 104. In an embodiment of the present invention, the CSR may initiate a price negotiation with the vendor 104 and/or the advertising agency 102. In another embodiment of the present invention, the price negotiation module 208 may be configured to enable the CSR to update pricing of the advertising medium 106 with the vendor 104 and set a price to deliver to the advertising agency 102…Further, the proposal module 210 may be configured to generate a proposal for the advertising agency 102. In one embodiment of the present invention, the proposal may include, but not limited to, a pricing of the advertising medium 106, a template of an advertisement, a market map, an interactive map, a charting, and so forth.” Furthermore, as cited in ¶ [0037] “The matching module 204 may be configured to match the parameters of the RFP with vendor details associated with the vendors 104. In an embodiment of the present invention, the vendor details associated with the vendors 104 may be stored in the database 118. Further, the matching module 204 may be configured to select a list of vendors 104 having matching inventory with the received RFP of the advertising agency 102.” Furthermore, as cited in ¶ [0064] “Furthermore, the data processing module 216 may be configured to communicate a status of the campaign to the notification module 218. Once the campaign is live, the notification module 218 may generate a Proof Of Performance (POP) notification. The POP notification may further comprise a unique/complex URL comprising the unique ID associated with the RFP of the advertising agency 102 generated by the URL generation module 206. The notification module 218 may transmit the POP notification comprising the URL to the vendor 104.” Furthermore, as cited in ¶ [0067] “Once all the POP images are captured for the campaign, the report generation module 224 may be configured to generate a POP report. In one embodiment of the present invention, the POP report may include, but is not limited to, the POP images of each advertising medium 106 at each location displaying the advertisement in the campaign.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to add Klockner’s graphic user interface presenting a real-time list of available digital content options filtered from the synchronized data in accordance with one or more customer filters associated with the custom targeting attributes, wherein one or more of the available digital content options are presented in a packaged group based on associated real-time metrics received from the third party servers to Buller’s receiving an access request from a user device at an online management server, wherein the user device is associated with a server system; and generating a graphic user interface for the user device, the graphic user interface presenting a real-time list of available digital content options. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “generate a unique/complex URL comprising the unique ID associated with the RFP for the interactive map.” (Klockner: ¶ [0054]).
Buller and Klockner do not explicitly disclose wherein a change in data in the third party server triggers automatic data sync via the API and a change in data in the server triggers a creation of a parallel data in the third party server.
However, Fleck further discloses wherein a change in data in the third party server triggers automatic data sync via the API and a change in data in the server triggers a creation of a parallel data in the third party server (i.e. change or update requests trigger automatic data syn via API by creating parallel data structure) (Fleck: Col. 5 Lines 19-55 “The service provisioning system 2 receives change requests concerning the aforementioned distributed service data from the terminals 51 to 54 and from the server 55. The terminals 51 to 54 represent operator terminals of ( different) network operators which are responsible for the telecommunication network 1 or a part of the telecommunication network 1. The terminals 51 to 54 are used by these network operators to initiate changes in the service data of the telecommunication network 1 that are for example triggered by the change of a subscriber from one network operator to another network operator. The agents of the network operator input these data in the terminal 51 to 54 and the respective terminal forwards the inputted change request to the service provisioning system 2. Besides this possibility to input such search request via a human machine interface, it is also possible that these change requests are automatically generated by a server of one of the involved network operators or by a server of a third party. This possibility is indicated by the server 55 which transmits change requests to the service provisioning system 2. The service provisioning system 2 receives from the terminals 51 to 54 and the server 55 a plurality of change requests for service data used by network elements of the telecommunication network 1. The service provisioning system 2 analyzes the dependencies of two or more of these change requests with respect to the service data and aggregates independent change request. Then, it transmits update commands relating to the change request to one or several network elements of the telecommunication network 1. These update commands trigger the network elements to execute the necessary changes of the distributed service data. Thereby, the service provisioning system 2 controls the sequence of transmission of the update commands by means of the aforementioned analyzation and aggregation steps. It transmits one or more concurrent update commands to the network elements that forces a parallel execution of the aggregated change requests.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to add Fleck’s change in data in the third party server triggers automatic data sync via the API and a change in data in the server triggers a creation of a parallel data in the third party server to Buller’s receiving an access request from a user device at an online management server, wherein the user device is associated with a server system; and generating a graphic user interface for the user device, the graphic user interface presenting a real-time list of available digital content options. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “it lowers complexity of exception handling within such environment and supports the use of different network management systems at the network elements of the telecommunication network as well as the service provisioning system. Thereby, it allows an efficient run of updating processes within such environment.” (Fleck: Col. 2 Lines 47-52).
With respect to Claims 11 and 21:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 1. Claim 11 recites “A system of integrated order management for digital content campaigns, the system comprising: a communication interface that communicates over a communication network; and a processor that executes instructions stored in memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions to:” (Buller: Col. 13 Lines 33-45) to perform the steps of method claim 1. Claim 21 recites “A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, having embodied thereon a program executable by a processor to perform a method of integrated order management for digital content campaigns, the method comprising:” (Buller: Col. 13 Lines 46-56) the steps of method claim 1. Claims 11 and 21 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 1. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 2:
Buller teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the server system includes a seller server system, and wherein the synchronized data includes digital content inventory associated with the seller server system (i.e. ad broker server includes ad exchange server and wherein the advertisement space is associated with ad exchange server) (Buller: Col. 4 Lines 11-20 “The ad broker server 140 acts as an intermediary between the advertisers 110 and the ad exchange 120, handling the details needed to enable the advertisers 110 to best meet their advertising goals. In particular, the ad broker server 140 enables advertisers 110 to collaborate in submitting a bid for an advertisement space for a user 130. When the ad broker server 140 is notified, by the ad exchange 120, of a bid opportunity for a viewing user, the ad broker server 140 identifies a set of advertisers 110 that have advertising criteria that match properties of the bid opportunity.”).
With respect to Claim 12:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 2. Claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 2. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 3:
Buller teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the seller server system is associated with one or more predefined approval workflows, and further comprising automatically generating the order based on the predefined approval workflows (i.e. predefined rules for approval of collaboration and generating bids based on rules) (Buller: Col. 5 Lines 33-48 “Collaboration rules 207 represents a data store that stores collaboration rules received from collaborating advertisers that have agreed to enter into a "collaborative relationship." These rules define how competition for bids is handled between two or more advertisers who have mutually agreed to enter the collaborative relationship. In some embodiments the collaboration rules that are retrieved and applied are those of the advertiser that "owns" the data that caused the collaborating advertisers to be selected as candidates. Collaboration rules between two or more advertisers sharing a collaborative relationship include a set of predefined conditions that are evaluated in response to a specified bid request/opportunity to identify which if any of the two or more advertisers would be selected to submit a bid in response to the specified bid.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 6 Lines 38-51 “Other rules are possible, as well. For example, an advertiser 110 could specify that in a particular instance (e.g., when the data indicates a particular condition, such as that the viewing user had previously shopped for women's purses) it wishes to submit a bid, regardless of whether other advertisers are willing to pay it more for forfeiting the bid opportunity than it is expected to gain from bidding (i.e., whether CF A<CWA). As another possible rule, if Advertiser A has already shown many ads to the individual user for that day ( a frequency cap), then Advertiser A may forfeit the bid opportunity. In some embodiments, the collaboration rules are categorized into multiple classes of conditions based on a nature of the constraint imposed by the rules and type of condition being evaluated.”).
With respect to Claim 13:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 3. Claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 3. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 4:
Buller teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the options include tools selectable to create a proposal based on the order selections and one or more specified parameters (i.e. options include tools to recommend advertisers to collaborate with based on bid selections and specified parameters or similar characteristics) (Buller: Col. 14 Lines 18-27 “As shown in FIG. 6A, a subject advertiser (e.g., the advertiser whose account profile is displayed in FIG. 6A) can view other collaborating advertisers 610 (referred to as 'partners' in FIG. 6A) with whom the subject advertiser has established collaboration relationships. The subject advertiser can be provided recommendations for potential advertisers 620 that the subject advertiser may be interested in or find financially beneficial to form collaboration relationships with (e.g., advertisers who may share similar characteristics as the subject advertiser).” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 12 Lines 51-56 “Two or more advertisers share a "collaboration" relationship, for instance, if the two or more advertisers are in a synergistic partnership relationship, by virtue of sharing logged data, submitting bid requests for similar ad spaces or ad campaigns, and advertising related products. Collaboration rules may define various selection criteria.”).
With respect to Claim 14:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 4. Claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 4. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 5:
Buller teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein the graphic user interface further includes a status of a plurality of proposals including the created proposal associated with the server system (i.e. status of request from advertisement collaborators or proposals are indicated as pending approval with respect to being accepted/declined) (Buller: Figs. 6A and 6B and Col. 14 Lines 33-46 “FIG. 6B illustrates that a subject advertiser (e.g., the advertiser whose account profile is displayed in FIG. 6B) can interact with other advertisers by requesting the other advertisers (e.g., the list of advertisers 660) to form new collaboration relationships with the subject advertiser. When another advertiser accepts the subject advertiser's request to collaborate, a collaboration relationship is formed between the other advertiser and the subject advertiser. Alternatively, or in addition, other advertisers may designate the subject advertiser as a potential collaboration advertiser. The ad broker server 140 may then send a request for collaboration from the other advertiser(s) (as illustrated in item 670) to the subject advertiser; the subject advertiser may accept or decline the request for collaboration.”).
With respect to Claim 15:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 5. Claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 5. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 6:
Buller teaches:
The method of claim 4, further comprising initiating online placement of digital content inventory associated with the order based on the specified parameters (i.e. advertisement is displayed in ad space based on bid requests and specified rules or parameters) (Buller: Col. 3 Lines 16-54 “When an advertisement opportunity arises-that is, when there is an "advertisement space" to be filled as part of content shown to a viewing user, either in a predefined region of a webpage being viewed by the viewing user, as a separate display ( e.g., a "pop-up" or a separate browser tab) in addition to a requested webpage, or as a prelude to the requested page-an ad exchange 120 selects one or more advertisements for display within the advertisement space. Typically, the selected advertisements are associated with content that is relevant to the content or webpage requested by the viewing user or that is otherwise determined to be relevant to the viewing user based on the user's online viewing patterns and activities. For example, an advertisement opportunity may arise in response to the triggering of particular terms entered by a viewing user (e.g., a search field of a search engine). When an ad opportunity arises, the ad exchange 120 may solicit bids for an advertisement space directly from advertisers 110, or from ad broker servers 140 acting on behalf of the advertisers. Based on the received bids, the ad exchange 120 may run ad auctions to select, from among the participating submissions (i.e., bids and their corresponding advertisements), an appropriate advertisement for display to the viewing user in the advertisement space. In some embodiments, based on known conversion rates and bids for the advertisements, the ad exchange 120 can select, from the pool of candidate advertisements submitted by advertisers 110, a set of advertisements generating the highest expected revenues for the advertising publisher. The selected advertisements might then be displayed as graphical or textual links with associated textual descriptions located within a sponsored links section of the search results, for example, or other areas. Activating the links, such as by clicking on them, leads a web browser of the user to display the page designated by the link, such as a page where the associated products can be purchased. Such activation of an advertisement link associated with a particular term is hereinafter referred to as "clicking" the advertisement or its associated term.”).
With respect to Claim 16:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 6. Claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 6. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 7:
Buller teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the server system includes a buyer server system, and wherein the real-time list includes digital content inventory associated with a plurality of different seller server systems (i.e. system includes ad auction system, wherein the real-time list includes advertisements from different advertisers or ad brokers) (Buller: Element 610 in Fig. 6A and Element 660 in Fig. 6B; and Col. 14 Lines 14-32 “FIGS. 6A-6B illustrate examples of a user interfaces presented on behalf of the ad broker to an advertiser during a set up phase of a collaborative relationship. As shown in FIG. 6A, a subject advertiser (e.g., the advertiser whose account profile is displayed in FIG. 6A) can view other collaborating advertisers 610 (referred to as 'partners' in FIG. 6A) with whom the subject advertiser has established collaboration relationships. The subject advertiser can be provided recommendations for potential advertisers 620 that the subject advertiser may be interested in or find financially beneficial to form collaboration relationships with (e.g., advertisers who may share similar characteristics as the subject advertiser). The subject advertiser may search for 630 other advertisers to form collaboration relationships with. The subject advertiser may launch 640 a new advertisement campaign, and designate (invite 650) collaborating advertisers to join an existing campaign or the join a newly created campaign.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 3 Lines 32-40 “When an ad opportunity arises, the ad exchange 120 may solicit bids for an advertisement space directly from advertisers 110, or from ad broker servers 140 acting on behalf of the advertisers. Based on the received bids, the ad exchange 120 may run ad auctions to select, from among the participating submissions (i.e., bids and their corresponding advertisements), an appropriate advertisement for display to the viewing user in the advertisement space.”).
With respect to Claim 17:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 7. Claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 7. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 8:
Buller does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein generating the graphic user interface further includes applying dynamic rules as one or more new custom targeting attributes are provided, wherein different approval workflows and thresholds are defined for the available digital content options in the real-time list.
However, Klockner further discloses wherein generating the graphic user interface further includes applying dynamic rules as one or more new custom targeting attributes are provided, wherein different approval workflows and thresholds are defined for the available digital content options in the real-time list (i.e. generating a GUI applying rules in accordance to the parameters, wherein different levels are set for the different parameters in real-time, such as media type or market, demographic information and higher population density) (Klockner: ¶¶ [0052]-[0054] “In one embodiment of the present invention, the interactive map may show advertising medium 106 by market with options to show an advertising agency location, a customer location and/or a competitor location. Further, the map generation module 214 may be configured to overlay demographic data by a zip code on the interactive map, in an embodiment of the present invention. The map generation module 214 may assign a transparent colored overlay to each of the zip code, in an exemplary scenario. The transparent colored overlay may be darker based on a higher population density of the selected demographic, or vice versa. The available demographics may further be divided based on, but not limited to, an age, a sex, an ethnicity, and a household income, and so forth…The user interface module 222 may enable the advertising agency 102 to interact with the interactive map and may filter the advertising medium 106 based on, but not limited to, a media type, a market, and so forth within the interactive map…In an embodiment of the present invention, the URL generation module 206 may generate a unique/complex URL comprising the unique ID associated with the RFP for the interactive map. In one embodiment of the present invention, the URL for the interactive map may be transmitted along with the proposal notification to the advertising agency 102 by the notification module 218.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to add Klockner’s generating the graphic user interface further includes applying dynamic rules as one or more new custom targeting attributes are provided, wherein different approval workflows and thresholds are defined for the available digital content options in the real-time list to Buller’s receiving an access request from a user device at an online management server, wherein the user device is associated with a server system; and generating a graphic user interface for the user device, the graphic user interface presenting a real-time list of available digital content options. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “generate a unique/complex URL comprising the unique ID associated with the RFP for the interactive map.” (Klockner: ¶ [0054]).
With respect to Claim 18:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 8. Claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 8. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 9:
Buller teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the metrics for the digital content inventory are presented in association with one or more different campaigns corresponding to different sets of the digital content inventory (i.e. statistics correspond to different advertisements or brands corresponding to different advertisers) (Buller: Cols. 4-5 Lines 47-8 “User data 205 represents a data store that contains user data retrieved by the ad broker server 140 from various advertisers 110. The user data includes observations and statistics about the online activities of various users on websites hosted by the advertisers 110. Scripts executing at the websites hosted by the advertisers 110 log such observations about the users visiting and browsing web content on the advertisers' web sites. In particular, the user data corresponds to the users' online exposure to or engagement with web content including commercial webpages, online representations of services or products having purchase or marketing information, online advertisements, or sponsored web content. The user data also identifies the users associated with the online activities. Examples of user data in the user data 205 include identifiers of web sites or web pages visited, frequency of visitation, time spent on each site, products or services purchased online, various spending statistics, ads viewed, types and numbers of ad engagement ( clicks, conversions, and the like). Each piece of data about a user includes an indication of the advertiser 110 who "owns" that piece of data ( e.g., the advertiser responsible from the website from that the user visited and from which the data was obtained). Table 1 contains an illustration of the nature of user data stored in the user data 205. In this example, user data for User A was retrieved from Advertiser A (e.g., Brand A) and user data for User M was retrieved from Advertiser B ( e.g., Brand B). An item of user data 205 also indicates, in addition to the data itself, the respective user and respective advertiser to which the data correspond.”).
With respect to Claim 19:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 9. Claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 9. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 10:
Buller teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the graphic user interface further presents one or more proposals from one or more of the different seller systems, each proposal corresponding to a different set of digital content inventory (i.e. requests or proposals from different advertisers or partners associated with their respective ad broker server, wherein each request corresponds to a different advertisement) (Buller: Element 610 in Fig. 6A and Element 660 in Fig. 6B; and Col. 14 Lines 14-32 “FIGS. 6A-6B illustrate examples of a user interfaces presented on behalf of the ad broker to an advertiser during a set up phase of a collaborative relationship. As shown in FIG. 6A, a subject advertiser (e.g., the advertiser whose account profile is displayed in FIG. 6A) can view other collaborating advertisers 610 (referred to as 'partners' in FIG. 6A) with whom the subject advertiser has established collaboration relationships. The subject advertiser can be provided recommendations for potential advertisers 620 that the subject advertiser may be interested in or find financially beneficial to form collaboration relationships with (e.g., advertisers who may share similar characteristics as the subject advertiser). The subject advertiser may search for 630 other advertisers to form collaboration relationships with. The subject advertiser may launch 640 a new advertisement campaign, and designate (invite 650) collaborating advertisers to join an existing campaign or the join a newly created campaign.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 3 Lines 32-40 “When an ad opportunity arises, the ad exchange 120 may solicit bids for an advertisement space directly from advertisers 110, or from ad broker servers 140 acting on behalf of the advertisers. Based on the received bids, the ad exchange 120 may run ad auctions to select, from among the participating submissions (i.e., bids and their corresponding advertisements), an appropriate advertisement for display to the viewing user in the advertisement space.”).
With respect to Claim 20:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 10. Claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 10. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 11 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 12/05/2025, with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are not persuasive. The Applicant asserts “The Applicant respectfully notes that the claims have been amended to change their respective scope, and as such, the double patenting rejections may no longer apply. The Examiner is invited to contact Applicant’s undersigned representative if the presented claims are otherwise in condition for allowance to discuss whether a terminal disclaimer might still be warranted.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained above with updated analysis.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 11-15 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 12/05/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 have been considered and are persuasive. The Applicant asserts “ The recited limitations find support in the Specification as filed, which describes that changes in data in the third party server, such as the "proposal created in a CRM" or "campaign updates" "triggers an automatic data sync via an API to web application 203." Specification, [0073]-[0074]. Likewise, changes in data in the server system, such as "edit line items the publisher within marketplace of web application 203" triggers "a parallel product be created" in the third party server, such that data associated with different third party accounts mapped to different user devices are bi-directionally synched with the server system. Id. Such changes are dynamically displayed and updated on the graphic user interface. Id. at [0036]-[0037], [0061]. At least 'generating a graphic user interface' and updating 'the graphic user interface with the real-time list of available digital content based on the automatically synched data' cannot be performed manually by humans nor can it be performed mentally. Moreover, as further specified in the present independent claims, the claimed 'graphic user interface' specifically includes 'a real-time list of available digital content options filtered from the synchronized data in accordance with one or more custom filters associated with the custom targeting attributes, wherein one or more of the available digital content options are presented in a packaged group based on associated real-time metrics.' Further, such trigger of an API request for data synchronization based on data change cannot be directed to methods of organizing human activity. As recited, the present independent claims provide for more efficient access to specifically filtered and grouped digital content options. The Federal Circuit has previously found patent- eligibility where "[t]he disclosed invention improves the efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together 'a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data." Core Wireless Licensing SARI v. LG Electronics, 88- F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed Cir. 2018). Similar to the claim at issue in Core Wireless that recited "a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices," the present claims recite the same by way of a particular 'graphic user interface' that charts specific filter results (e.g., 'available digital content options,' 'custom filters,' custom targeting attributes,' 'packaged group') between datasets that have been synchronized (synchronizing data between the server system and a database of the online management server).” The Examiner would also like to note that The claims overcome 35 U.S.C. 101 since the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as the claims include limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application (Applying or using 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 claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception). The specification outlines how a dual sync system allows users the ability to manage third party systems without having to access the systems separately (Paragraph 0042). The back and forth dual-synchronization between disparate systems of the third party systems and the platform server create an unconventional arrangement that, much like BASCOM, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 15-16 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 12/05/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 over Buller in view of Klockner have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent 7,630,480 to Fleck.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following reference are cited to further show the state of the art:
U.S. Publication 2018/0096417 to Cook for disclosing systems and methods are provided for object discovery and object mapping through an application with a Graphical User Interface (GUI). Objects are discovered through an object recommendation channel and through user input of key words and/or key phrases. Each object includes an Intensity of Interest (IoI), which is a relative preference for an object reflected by relative size in the object map. Additionally, the object map provides a visual display which indicates relationships among objects.
U.S. Publication 2014/0257935 to Killoh for disclosing a computer-based integrated advertising management platform implements ad pricing options via a Business Rules Management System configured to enable rules-based pricing while avoiding large, multi-dimensional sets of rate tables that must be stored to cover all possible combinations of options. A user makes selections on an ad booking form, pricing rules are checked in the background, and the remaining options and current price displayed to the user are updated. The Rules Engine incorporates an integrated third-party Drools BRMS. Client applications access BRMS functions through a "BRMSEngine" abstraction layer, which preloads rules in compiled binary form to build a rules cache for best performance.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 Azam Ansari, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7047. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8 AM and 4:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at (571) 270-3948.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephonic interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/AZAM A ANSARI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
January 27, 2026