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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. “Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)” (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, l 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. The Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
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has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01
April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/amendment was filed on 01 April 2026.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. However, the Examiner welcomes any suggestion(s) Applicants may have on moving prosecution forward. The Examiner’s contact information is in the Conclusion of this office action.
Applicant argues:
Applicant submits that the previous claim amendments were directed to a critical
distinction, namely the automatic generation of a first file from the first file template based on the set of one or more merge parameter data structures. To further clarify this distinction, Applicant has amended independent Claim 1 to recite that the first file is "programmatically generated by creating a copy of the first file template and replacing the dynamic content markers in the copy with merge parameter data obtained from the respective merge parameter data sources identified by the set of one or more merge parameter data structures and without user interaction." (Amended independent Claim 1).
Mishra is fundamentally user-interactive and GUI-driven. The process of generating a
new advertisement from a template in Mishra requires manual user actions, such as pressing a "new ad" button, selecting assets, and editing parameters via the GUI. (Mishra, Paragraph [0033], [0034], [0046], and [0086]-[0087]. There is no disclosure in Mishra of a file creation request that serializes merge parameter data structures (each with an identifier and data source) as a payload, nor of a programmatic, server-side merge operation performed automatically and without further user input after the request is received.
In response, the Examiner submits:
The amended independent claims recite “wherein the first file is programmatically generated by creating a copy of the first file template and replacing the dynamic content markers in the copy with merge parameter data obtained from the respective merge parameter data sources identified by the set of one or more merge parameter data structures and without user interaction”.
Mishra does teach the limitation of “wherein the first file is programmatically generated by creating a copy of the first file template” (Mishra: at least ¶0034; “operation, user 10 may engage user computer 12 to retrieve webpage 106 from database 104 of template server 102” and “new template GUI 700 may appear on webpage 106. User 10 may interact with graphical user interface 108 to create/modify SWF object and/or a template”; ¶¶0078, 0080 further disclose “user 10 may press new template button 244 to bring new template GUI 700 to webpage 106” and “a new template button 702 that may cause new template GUI 700 to be displayed on webpage 106”).
The Examiner notes that programmatically can mean “by using a computer program”.
One possible interpretation of the added limitation is that the recited first file is generated programmatically. In that case, the generation is done by software and without user interaction.
Applicant argues that “there is no disclosure in Mishra of a file creation request that serializes merge parameter data structures (each with an identifier and data source) as a payload, nor of a programmatic, server-side merge operation performed automatically and without further user input after the request is received”.
However, the independent claims do not recite limitation(s) that require (1) file creation request that serializes merge parameter data structures” or (2) file creation request or merge operation performed “without further user input after the request is received”. The independent claims merely recite “… without user interaction” instead of “… without further user input after the request is received” that Applicant alleges.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues:
The Office Action's mapping equates Mishra' s GUI asset parameters and variables with the claimed "merge parameter data structures" and "dynamic content markers." (OA, Page 4). However, Mishra's "variables" are not "dynamic content markers." Instead, the variables of Mishra are placeholder tokens embedded in a template file for later replacement during file generation. Mishra also does not disclose that the file creation request itself comprises a set of merge parameter data structures, each with a merge parameter identifier and data source, as required by the claim.
In response, the Examiner submits:
The independent claims recite “first file creation request comprises a set of one or more merge parameter data structures”. The claims do not recite limitation(s) that require plurality of merge parameter structures. The independent claims also do not recite limitation(s) that require plurality of merge parameter structures, each with a merge parameter identifier and data source. In fact, the independent claims do not even recite limitation(s) that require “merge parameter identifier”.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues:
However, to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended Claim 1 to recite that the file is generated "programmatically ... and without user interaction" after the file creation request is received. Mishra' s process, which requires user input at each step of asset selection and template editing (Mishra, Paragraph [0033]-[0034], [0046], [0086]-[0087]), does not cover the features of independent Claim 1.
In response, the Examiner submits:
The amended independent claims recite “wherein the first file is programmatically generated by creating a copy of the first file template and replacing the dynamic content markers in the copy with merge parameter data obtained from the respective merge parameter data sources identified by the set of one or more merge parameter data structures and without user interaction”.
The independent claims do not recite limitation(s) that require said first file is generated “… without user interaction".
The recited limitation can mean either (1) the generation of the first file is done without user interaction, (2) the replacing of the dynamic content markers is done without user interaction or (3) the obtaining of the merge parameter data is done without user interaction.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “wherein the first file is programmatically generated by creating a copy of the first file template and replacing the dynamic content markers in the copy with merge parameter data obtained from the respective merge parameter data sources identified by the set of one or more merge parameter data structures and without user interaction”.
Applicant’s original specification teaches:
[0063] ”With regards to the generation subsystem 212, a file generation request may contain an identifier for a file template referred to as the file template ID. This indicated template may be used as the basis for generating the requested file. The generation subsystem 212 may use this information to retrieve (a copy of) the indicated template and may then use the merge parameters provided by the dispatch subsystem 204 and the parameter retrieval subsystem 206 to fill in the dynamic elements of the indicated template” and
[0073] “Referring now to FIG. 9, a flowchart illustrating a process of generating a file. To start, as shown by block 902 of FIG. 9, dispatch subsystem 204 receives a file generation request from third-party system. After the dispatch subsystem 204 receives the file generation request, as shown by block 903 of FIG. 9, the generation subsystem 212 retrieves a copy of the template identified by the file generation request (or the associated data tuple) from the template database 218. After the render subsystem 212 retrieves the copy of the identified template, as shown by block 904 of FIG. 9, the render engine 213 modifies the template copy by replacing the dynamic elements of the template with the data from a matching merge parameter tuple. Specifically, for the render engine 213 replaces the next remaining dynamic element of the retrieved file template using a matching one of the merge parameter tuples included in the received file generation request”
Applicant’s original specification appears to support “wherein the first file is programmatically generated by retrieving a copy of the first file template and replacing the dynamic content markers in the copy with merge parameter data obtained from the first file creation request (or obtained from a dispatch subsystem and a parameter retrieval subsystem) rather than the recited limitation above.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend from independent claims 1, 8 and 15, and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “wherein the first file is programmatically generated by creating a copy of the first file template and replacing the dynamic content markers in the copy with merge parameter data obtained from the respective merge parameter data sources identified by the set of one or more merge parameter data structures and without user interaction”.
“The dynamic content markers in the copy” and “the respective merge parameter data sources identified by the set of one or more merge parameter data structures” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The limitation above is also indefinite because it is unclear whether it is the generation of the first file, the replacing of the dynamic content markers or the obtaining of the merge parameter data that is done without user interaction.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend from independent claims 1, 8 and 15, and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2010/0083129 by Mishra et al. (“Mishra”) in view of USPGPUB 2003/0226141 by Krasnow et al. (“Krasnow”).
As to Claim 1, Mishra teaches a computer implemented method for managing generated files, comprising: receiving, at a first server, a first file template creation request from a client device (Mishra: at least ¶0034; “System 100 may include a template server 102, a database 104, a webpage 106, and graphical user interfaces 108, such as an ads graphical user interface (GUI) 200, a Shockwave Flash (SWF) GUI 300, and a new template GUI 700” and “operation, user 10 may engage user computer 12 to retrieve webpage 106 from database 104 of template server 102” and “new template GUI 700 may appear on webpage 106. User 10 may interact with graphical user interface 108 to create/modify SWF object and/or a template”; ¶¶0078, 0080 further disclose “user 10 may press new template button 244 to bring new template GUI 700 to webpage 106” and “a new template button 702 that may cause new template GUI 700 to be displayed on webpage 106”; ¶¶0085, 0097 further disclose “in this example, user 10 named the template "My Advertisement". At 612, method 600 may saved the file in template library node 234” and “method 600 then may receive instructions to save new template 366 as complete at step 630”);
generating on the first server, in response to receiving the first file template creation request, a first file template (Mishra: at least ¶0034; “new template GUI 700 may appear on webpage 106. User 10 may interact with graphical user interface 108 to create/modify SWF object and/or a template”; ¶¶0078, 0080 further disclose “user 10 may press new template button 244 to bring new template GUI 700 to webpage 106” and “a new template button 702 that may cause new template GUI 700 to be displayed on webpage 106”; ¶¶0085, 0097 further disclose “in this example, user 10 named the template "My Advertisement". At 612, method 600 may saved the file in template library node 234” and “method 600 then may receive instructions to save new template 366 as complete at step 630”) with static content data and dynamic content markers (Mishra: at least ¶¶0053, 0087-0088; “storage control box 304 may include a new SWF name text box 314, a save in folder text box 316 positioned below new SWF name text box 314, and a SWF save to button 318 positioned to the right of save in folder text box 316. New SWF name text box 314 may include an edit field to receive text information from user 10 to be used by system 100 to assign an identifying string of text to a SWF file. User 10 creation of a name for the SWF file may strengthen a notion that a result may be a separate SWF object. Save in folder text box 316 may include an edit field to receive text information from user 10 to be used by system 100 to place the SWF file in a named folder” and “Image combo box 736 may include an image combo box control bar 740 and an image drop down list 742. Image combo box control bar 740 may include a reset images button 744, the pressing of which may reset an initial stage image drop down list 742. Pressing image combo box control bar 740 may reveal or hid image drop down list 742. Image drop down list 742 may include image grid entries 746, each of which may include an image cell 748 having a replace image hypertext link 750, and include an image checkbox cell 752 and a image parameters cell 754. Each image grid entry 746 may contain one image asset from new template 366. Image cell 748 may host a copy of the image asset and image parameters cell 754 may include information about the image asset, such as the image name, the image dimensions in IMUs, the image weight in kilobytes, and the file type, such as GIF and JPG” and “In an example, image checkbox cell 752 may include an image not editable checkbox 756 and a hide image checkbox 758. When selected, image not editable checkbox 756 may characterize an image asset as not being editable within the template” ¶¶0094, 0096 further discloses “Text combo box control bar 760 also may include an update changes button 768 to provide control over which text changes may be implemented into new template 366” and “text checkbox cell 774 may include a text not editable checkbox 778 and a hide text checkbox 780. When selected, text not editable checkbox 778 may characterize an text asset as not being editable within the template”);
receiving on the first server, a first file creation request from the client device (Mishra: at least ¶0046; “pressing new ad button 246 may start a process to create a new advertisement”; ¶0033 also discloses “once user 10 creates the templates, the templates may be utilized to create graphical ads more easily by swapping in and out assets like background images, logos and headlines”), wherein the first file creation request comprises a set of one or more merge parameter data structures (Mishra: at least ¶¶0086-0087; “FIG. 19 is an example layout of new template GUI 700 with asset identification pane 728” and “image parameters cell 754. Each image grid entry 746 may contain one image asset from new template 366. Image cell 748 may host a copy of the image asset and image parameters cell 754 may include information about the image asset, such as the image name, the image dimensions in IMUs, the image weight in kilobytes, and the file type, such as GIF and JPG”);
generating on the first server, automatically in response to receiving the first file creation request, a first file from the first file template (Mishra: at least ¶0046; “pressing new ad button 246 may start a process to create a new advertisement”; ¶¶0033-0034 also disclose “once user 10 creates the templates, the templates may be utilized to create graphical ads more easily by swapping in and out assets like background images, logos and headlines” and “user 10 may interact with graphical user interface 108 to create/modify SWF object and/or a template to produce an advertisement”; ¶0102 further discloses “for example, a user starting with a template predetermined to be a 50x50 standard graphical advertisement having a logo in the lower left hand corner may output a 50x50 standard graphical advertisement with their choice of log appearing in the lower left hand corner of the advertisement”; note: automatic (adj) can mean done or produced as if by machine) based on the set of one or more merge parameter data structures (Mishra: at least ¶¶0086, 0091; “FIG. 19 is an example layout of new template GUI 700 with asset identification pane 728” and “FIG. 21 is an example layout of new template GUI 700 with new image asset "Automobile Truck 3" swapped into image cell 748 and into preview window 346. In response to the image swap, the information in image parameters cell 754 changed to represent the swapped image "Automobile Truck 3"), wherein the first file is programmatically generated by creating a copy of the first file template (Mishra: at least ¶0034; “operation, user 10 may engage user computer 12 to retrieve webpage 106 from database 104 of template server 102” and “new template GUI 700 may appear on webpage 106. User 10 may interact with graphical user interface 108 to create/modify SWF object and/or a template”; ¶¶0078, 0080 further disclose “user 10 may press new template button 244 to bring new template GUI 700 to webpage 106” and “a new template button 702 that may cause new template GUI 700 to be displayed on webpage 106”; note: programmatically can mean “by using a computer program”; modified copy of template) and replacing the dynamic content markers in the copy with merge parameter data obtained from the respective merge parameter data sources identified by the set of one or more merge parameter data structures and without user interaction (Mishra: at least ¶¶0086-0087; “FIG. 19 is an example layout of new template GUI 700 with asset identification pane 728” and “image parameters cell 754. Each image grid entry 746 may contain one image asset from new template 366. Image cell 748 may host a copy of the image asset and image parameters cell 754 may include information about the image asset, such as the image name, the image dimensions in IMUs, the image weight in kilobytes, and the file type, such as GIF and JPG”; ¶¶0089, 0091 further disclose “press replace image hypertext link 750 to begin a process of replacing an image asset within new template 366. In this example, user 10 may elect to replace the automobile product image by selecting replace image hypertext link 750 associated with that image. Pressing replace image hypertext link 750 may bring up image file dialog box 400 (FIG. 7) from which an image asset may be selected for insertion into new template 366” and “FIG. 21 is an example layout of new template GUI 700 with new image asset "Automobile Truck 3" swapped into image 748 and into preview window 346. In response to the image swap, the information in image parameters cell 754 changed to represent the swapped image "Automobile Truck 3");
storing the first file in non-volatile memory accessible by the first server (Mishra: at least ¶0034; “the advertisement may be stored in database 104 for subsequent processing”).
Mishra does not explicitly disclose, but Krasnow discloses detecting, by the first server, a deletion-triggering event (Krasnow: at least ¶¶0050, 0052; “… delete the advertisement information after a defined duration” and “an interactive advertisement 410, such as an HTML page, and/or an advertising image 412, such as a JPEG image that advertises a product or service”); and
deleting the first file from the non-volatile memory in response to detecting the deletion-triggering event (Krasnow: at least ¶¶0050, 0079; “… delete the advertisement information after a defined duration, such as after a number of days, weeks, or any other type of duration basis” and “advertisement information 404 in the advertisement data store 302”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Krasnow’s features of detecting, by the first server, a deletion-triggering event (Krasnow: at least ¶¶0050, 0052; “… delete the advertisement information after a defined duration” and “an interactive advertisement 410, such as an HTML page, and/or an advertising image 412, such as a JPEG image that advertises a product or service”); and deleting the first file from the non-volatile memory in response to detecting the deletion-triggering event (Krasnow: at least ¶0050, 0079) with Mishra’s method.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to remove advertisement files that are not current (Krasnow: at least ¶0050).
Claim 8 (a system claim) corresponds in scope to claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 15 (a non-transitory computer readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 2, Mishra and Krasnow teach the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the deletion-triggering event may comprise a combination of one or more parameters (Krasnow: at least ¶0050; “… delete the advertisement information after a defined duration, such as after a number of days, weeks, or any other type of duration basis”).
Claim 9 (a system claim) corresponds in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 (a non-transitory computer readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 4, Mishra and Krasnow teach the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the deletion-triggering event is a duration (Krasnow: at least ¶0050; “… delete the advertisement information after a defined duration, such as after a number of days, weeks, or any other type of duration basis”) or length of a first amount of time since a date associated with the generation of the first file.
Claim 11 (a system claim) corresponds in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 (a non-transitory computer readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 6, Mishra and Krasnow teach the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the first file template comprises static content data and one or more dynamic content markers (Mishra: at least ¶¶0053, 0087-0088; “storage control box 304 may include a new SWF name text box 314, a save in folder text box 316 positioned below new SWF name text box 314, and a SWF save to button 318 positioned to the right of save in folder text box 316. New SWF name text box 314 may include an edit field to receive text information from user 10 to be used by system 100 to assign an identifying string of text to a SWF file. User 10 creation of a name for the SWF file may strengthen a notion that a result may be a separate SWF object. Save in folder text box 316 may include an edit field to receive text information from user 10 to be used by system 100 to place the SWF file in a named folder” and “Image combo box 736 may include an image combo box control bar 740 and an image drop down list 742. Image combo box control bar 740 may include a reset images button 744, the pressing of which may reset an initial stage image drop down list 742. Pressing image combo box control bar 740 may reveal or hid image drop down list 742. Image drop down list 742 may include image grid entries 746, each of which may include an image cell 748 having a replace image hypertext link 750, and include an image checkbox cell 752 and a image parameters cell 754. Each image grid entry 746 may contain one image asset from new template 366. Image cell 748 may host a copy of the image asset and image parameters cell 754 may include information about the image asset, such as the image name, the image dimensions in IMUs, the image weight in kilobytes, and the file type, such as GIF and JPG” and “In an example, image checkbox cell 752 may include an image not editable checkbox 756 and a hide image checkbox 758. When selected, image not editable checkbox 756 may characterize an image asset as not being editable within the template” ¶¶0094, 0096 further discloses “Text combo box control bar 760 also may include an update changes button 768 to provide control over which text changes may be implemented into new template 366” and “text checkbox cell 774 may include a text not editable checkbox 778 and a hide text checkbox 780. When selected, text not editable checkbox 778 may characterize an text asset as not being editable within the template”); and generating the first file from the first file template comprises: creating a copy of the first file template (Mishra: at least ¶0034; “… template, and the advertisement may be stored in database 104 for subsequent processing”; ¶¶0078, 0080 further disclose “user 10 may press new template button 244 to bring new template GUI 700 to webpage 106” and “a new template button 702 that may cause new template GUI 700 to be displayed on webpage 106”; ¶¶0085, 0097 further disclose “in this example, user 10 named the template "My Advertisement". At 612, method 600 may saved the file in template library node 234” and “method 600 then may receive instructions to save new template 366 as complete at step 630”) with the static content data and the one or more dynamic content markers, wherein the one or more dynamic content markers of the first file template are each associated with a respective merge parameter identifier (Mishra: at least ¶¶0053, 0087-0088; “storage control box 304 may include a new SWF name text box 314, a save in folder text box 316 positioned below new SWF name text box 314, and a SWF save to button 318 positioned to the right of save in folder text box 316. New SWF name text box 314 may include an edit field to receive text information from user 10 to be used by system 100 to assign an identifying string of text to a SWF file. User 10 creation of a name for the SWF file may strengthen a notion that a result may be a separate SWF object. Save in folder text box 316 may include an edit field to receive text information from user 10 to be used by system 100 to place the SWF file in a named folder” and “Image combo box 736 may include an image combo box control bar 740 and an image drop down list 742. Image combo box control bar 740 may include a reset images button 744, the pressing of which may reset an initial stage image drop down list 742. Pressing image combo box control bar 740 may reveal or hid image drop down list 742. Image drop down list 742 may include image grid entries 746, each of which may include an image cell 748 having a replace image hypertext link 750, and include an image checkbox cell 752 and a image parameters cell 754. Each image grid entry 746 may contain one image asset from new template 366. Image cell 748 may host a copy of the image asset and image parameters cell 754 may include information about the image asset, such as the image name, the image dimensions in IMUs, the image weight in kilobytes, and the file type, such as GIF and JPG” and “In an example, image checkbox cell 752 may include an image not editable checkbox 756 and a hide image checkbox 758. When selected, image not editable checkbox 756 may characterize an image asset as not being editable within the template” ¶¶0094, 0096 further discloses “Text combo box control bar 760 also may include an update changes button 768 to provide control over which text changes may be implemented into new template 366” and “text checkbox cell 774 may include a text not editable checkbox 778 and a hide text checkbox 780. When selected, text not editable checkbox 778 may characterize an text asset as not being editable within the template”); and
inserting merge parameter data into the one or more dynamic content markers of the copy of the first file template using the set of one or more merge parameter data structures, wherein: the set of one or more merge parameter data structures each comprise a respective merge parameter identifier and a respective merge parameter data source (Mishra: at least ¶0087; “image grid entries 746, each of which may include an image cell 748 having a replace image hypertext link 750, and include an image checkbox cell 752 and a image parameters cell 754” and “image parameters cell 754 may include information about the image asset, such as the image name, the image dimensions in IMUs, the image weight in kilobytes, and the file type, such as GIF and JPG"); and the merge parameter data is obtained from one or more respective merge parameter data sources (Mishra: at least ¶0087; “image grid entries 746, each of which may include an image cell 748 having a replace image hypertext link 750, and include an image checkbox cell 752 and a image parameters cell 754”).
Claim 13 (a system claim) corresponds in scope to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 (a non-transitory computer readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2010/0083129 by Mishra et al. (“Mishra”) in view of USPGPUB 2003/0226141 by Krasnow et al. (“Krasnow”), and further in view of US Patent 7,657,626 by Zwicky.
As to Claim 3, Mishra and Krasnow teach the computer implemented method of claim 2, wherein the deletion triggering event is based on an allowed location of viewing the first file (Krasnow: at least ¶0050; “the advertisement information can be deleted after having been reviewed by a viewer or when the hard disk, or a portion of the hard disk, in a digital video recorder becomes full with stored advertisements”; ¶0065 further discloses when a viewer logs in to an advertisement data store to review previously displayed advertisements and/or additional corresponding information”).
Mishra and Krasnow do not explicitly disclose, but Zwicky discloses wherein the one or more parameters comprises an IP address or a viewing address (Zwicky: at least Col. 15 Lines 18-22; “advertisement network and/or publisher websites can then block the corresponding IP addresses from being served advertising sponsor ads by either removing the ads from pages served to these IP addresses or by denying these addresses access to the publisher's websites”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zwicky’s feature of wherein the one or more parameters comprises an IP address or a viewing address (Zwicky: at least Col. 15 Lines 18-22) with the method disclosed by Mishra and Krasnow.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to detect and avoid click frauds (Zwicky: at least Abstract).
Claim 10 (a system claim) corresponds in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 (a non-transitory computer readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2010/0083129 by Mishra et al. (“Mishra”) in view of USPGPUB 2003/0226141 by Krasnow et al. (“Krasnow”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2013/0219426 by Zweig et al. (“Zweig”).
As to Claim 5, Mishra and Krasnow teach the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Mishra and Krasnow do not explicitly disclose, but Zweig discloses wherein the deletion-triggering event is an amount of times the first file is accessed exceeds a first access limit threshold (Zweig: at least ¶0058; “system may be designed such that an advertisement's data is deleted after it has been viewed once or twice or three times or if it has sat on a device but has not been viewed after a finite period of time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zweig’s feature of wherein the deletion-triggering event is an amount of times the first file is accessed exceeds a first access limit threshold (Zweig: at least ¶0058) with the method disclosed by Mishra and Krasnow.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to remove advertisement files/data that are no longer new (Zweig: at least ¶0058).
Claim 12 (a system claim) corresponds in scope to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 19 (a non-transitory computer readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2010/0083129 by Mishra et al. (“Mishra”) in view of USPGPUB 2003/0226141 by Krasnow et al. (“Krasnow”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2017/0374074 by Stuntebeck.
As to Claim 7, Mishra and Krasnow teach the computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving at the first server a request to access the first file after storing the first file in the non-volatile memory (Mishra: at least ¶¶0061, 0066; “preview window 346 may be rectangular in shape and may have a size of 300x250 IMU in one example to coincide with a medium rectangle advertisement” and “when displayed on an Internet webpage, the advertisement may be an online advertisement. As display advertising-content appearing on a webpage, the advertisement may be in a form such as text, a banner, a half banner, a streaming banner, a button, an interactive button ad, a clickable ad, mail, raw text, a rectangle, or a skyscraper and may range in size from 25x25 to 728x210, for example”).
Mishra and Krasnow do not explicitly disclose, but Stuntebeck discloses authenticating, by the first server, the request to access the first file, wherein a failure by the first server to authenticate the request to access the first file is the deletion-triggering event (Stuntebeck: at least ¶0044; “deleting the data files requested at step 302. In the case that the data files are stored on the computing environment 170, the device management service 176 can instruct the computing device 110 to delete the data files requested at step 302 upon the failure to receive a certified indicator of the verification of the user 180 (e.g., the indicator transmitted at step 316) within a certain period of time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Stuntebeck’s feature of authenticating, by the first server, the request to access the first file, wherein a failure by the first server to authenticate the request to access the first file is the deletion-triggering event (Stuntebeck: at least ¶0044) with the method disclosed by Mishra and Krasnow.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “protect any type of content files on any type of computing device or system” (Stuntebeck: at least ¶0009).
Claim 14 (a system claim) corresponds in scope to claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Huen Wong whose telephone number is (571) 270-3426. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (10:00AM EST - 6:00PM EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and after final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.W/Examiner, AU 2168
15 May 2026
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights