DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s “RESPONSE TO NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION DATED APRIL 2, 2025” filed on August 13, 2025 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 2, 8, 16 and 21; cancelled no claim(s); and added no claim(s). Claim 1 was previously cancelled. Therefore, Claims 2-21 remain currently pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 2, 8 and 16 remain independent claims.
The present application (U.S. App. No. 18/461,434) and its parent application (U.S. App. No. 16/290,316) were both filed after March 16, 2013; and, therefore, this application is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0095781 of Blanc et al. (hereinafter “Blanc”) corresponds to this patent application (U.S. App. No. 18/461,434).
Continuation
This application (U.S. App. No. 18/461,434) is a continuation application of U.S. Application No. 16/290,316 filed on March 1, 2019 (hereinafter “Parent Application”), now U.S. Patent No. 11,790,408. See MPEP § 201.07. In accordance with MPEP § 609.02 A. 2 and MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. In addition, Applicant is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desires the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP § 609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) is reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Priority/Benefit Claim(s)
No foreign priority has been claimed in this application or the Parent Application. However, a U.S. domestic benefit claim has been made to U.S. App. No. 16/290,316 (i.e., “Parent Application”).
Classification Information
Examiner notes CPC subclass G06F9/505 :
Allocation of resources, e.g. of the central processing unit [CPU] to service a request the resource being a machine, e.g. CPUs, Servers, Terminals considering the load.
Examiner notes CPC subclass H04N21/23424 regarding splicing video segments:
CPC CODE
H
ELECTRICITY
H04
ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
H04N
PICTORIAL COMMUNICATION, e.g. TELEVISION
H04N21/00
Selective content distribution, e.g. interactive television or video on demand [VOD] (real-time bi-directional transmission of motion video data H04N7/14 {; broadcast or conference over packet switching networks H04L12/18})
H04N21/20
• Servers specifically adapted for the distribution of content, e.g. VOD servers; Operations thereof
H04N21/23
• • Processing of content or additional data; Elementary server operations; Server middleware
H04N21/234
• • • Processing of video elementary streams, e.g. splicing of video streams, manipulating MPEG-4 scene graphs
H04N21/23424
• • • • {involving splicing one content stream with another content stream, e.g. for inserting or substituting an advertisement}
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes the specification objection; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the specification objection.
Applicant’s terminal disclaimer (electronically filed on August 13, 2025) overcomes Examiner’s nonstatutory double patenting rejections; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes the rejection to Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner withdraws § 112(b) rejection to Claim 21. However, Applicant’s Amendment introduces new rejections to the independent claims; therefore, the Examiner submits § 112(b) rejections to Claims 2-21, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment introduces new objections to independent Claims 2 and 8; therefore, the Examiner asserts the objections to Claims 2 and 8, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner asserts/maintains § 101 rejections to Claims 2-21, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Claim Objections
Independent Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical/spelling error(s). Examiner believes the phrase “the plurality of queue time” (recited in Claim 2) should be “the plurality of queue times” (underlining and bolding emphases added by Examiner). Appropriate correction(s) is required.
In addition, Claim 2 is objected to because Claim 2 twice introduces the phrase “second plurality of computing resources” and later attempts to make antecedent reference to “the second plurality of computing resources” (bolding emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the second plurality of computing resources” recited in Claim 2; therefore, Claim 2 is objected to. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the second plurality of computing resources” references first recited “second plurality of computing resources”, references second introduced “second plurality of computing resources” recited in the phrase “a plurality of queue time for second plurality of computing resources”, or references both “second plurality of computing resources” introduced in Claim 2. Therefore, Claim 2 is objected to. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Independent Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error(s). Examiner believes the phrase “determining, so as to load balance processing…: determining….; determining…; and determining…;” (recited in Claim 8) should be “determining, so as to load balance processing…: ….; …; and …;” (similar to original Claim 8). Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(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.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear” (MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Each of independent Claims 2 and 8 twice introduces the phrase “a plurality of…job completion times” and then subsequently introduces recitations of “the plurality of job completion times” (bolding emphasis added to Claim 2); therefore, it is unclear as to what later-recited phrase “the plurality of job completion times” makes antecedent reference to in each of Claims 2 and 8 — there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the plurality of job completion times” recited in each of Claims 2 and 8. Thus, each of independent Claims 2 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the plurality of job completion times” references the first-recited “a plurality of job completion times”, references the secondly introduced “a plurality of actual job completion times”, references some combination of the first-recited “a plurality of job completion times” and the “plurality of actual job completion times”, or references both phrases “a plurality of…job completion times” introduced in each of independent Claims 2 and 8. Consequently, independent Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Independent Claim 16 twice introduces the phrase “…background color” and then subsequently introduces recitations of “the background color” (bolding emphasis added to Claim 16); therefore, it is unclear as to what later-recited phrase “the background color” makes antecedent reference to in Claim 16 — there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the background color” recited in Claim 16. Thus, independent Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the background color” references the first-recited “an input background color”, references the secondly introduced “a background color”, or references both. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Claims 3-7 depend from independent Claim 2, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of the AIA . Similarly, Claims 9-15 depend from independent Claim 8, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 9-15 are rejected under § 112(b) of the AIA . Similarly, Claims 17-21 depend from independent Claim 16, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 17-21 are rejected under § 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 2-21 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 2-21 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 2-21 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite utilizing job completion times and queue times of resources to determine the resources to be assigned workloads or jobs (for processing by the resources), the jobs being based on inputs defined by a user (e.g., advertiser) to create visual content (e.g., advertisements, marketing material, etc.) for the user (e.g., advertiser) — resource allocation of jobs (workloads) based on time information received, such as matching jobs and resources based on time information received (monitoring job loads) — as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements):
generating a user interface including a graphical interface configured to receive a plurality of inputs for creating visual digital content, the graphical interface including 1st, 2nd and 3rd portions that are configured to receive information for creating the visual digital content;
causing the user interface to be presented on a client device;
receiving 1st, 2nd and 3rd interactions with the respective 1st, 2nd and 3rd portions of the graphical interface;
job loads associated with a plurality of computing resources (e.g., a first plurality of computing resources that are in communication with a computing system);
using a trained machine learning system that was trained using a plurality of actual job completion times;
each and every of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of receiving, assigning, compiling a plurality of job outputs, and returning;
(only Claim 1) a computing system comprising one or more processors and a memory storing program instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform; causing the user interface to be presented; and recited-phrase “so as to load balance processing of the plurality of jobs across the second plurality of computing resources” in view of MPEP § 2111.04 and MPEP § 2173.05(q) addressing a process that “merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced”
(only Claims 5 and 13) a selectable link;
(only Claims 6, 15 and 20) providing further training input and updating the trained machine learning system based on the further training input;
(only independent Claim 8) “generating, without further input from the client device, a first job, a second job, and a third job to be performed by a first computing resource, a second computing resource, and a third computing resource, wherein: the first job includes segmenting the video content item into a first segment and a second segment; the second job includes generating a call to action display based at least in part on the text input; and the third job includes interleaving the call to action display between the first segment and the second segment”; as well as “so as to load balance processing of the first job, the second, job, and the third job across the first plurality of computing resources” in view of MPEP §§ 2111.04 and 2173.05(q);
(only Claim 11) “the first job further includes segmenting the video content item into a third segment; the second job further includes generating a second call to action display based at least in part on the second text input; and the third job further includes interleaving the second call to action display between the second segment and the third segment”;
(only Claim 12) “generating an outro display to be included in the visual digital content” and “so as to load balance processing of the first job, the second, job, the third job, and the fourth job across the first plurality of computing resources”;
(only Claims 14 and 19) updating information stored and maintained in a datastore;
(only independent Claim 16) “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions” executable “by at least one processor of a computing system” to cause the computing system to perform; recited “generate, without further input from the client device, a plurality of jobs to be performed by a plurality of computing resources to process the video file, the first text input, and the background color to produce the digital content in which the first text input is interleaved between a first segment of the video file and a second segment of the video file in accordance with the template, wherein: a first job of the plurality of jobs includes segmenting the video file into at least the first segment and the second segment; a second job of the plurality of jobs includes generating a first call to action display based at least in part on the first text input and the background color; and a third job of the plurality of jobs includes interleaving the first call to action display between the first segment and the second segment”; as well as each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of assigning; and
(only Claim 18) assign the fourth job to a 4th computing resource of the plurality of computing resources.
However, using time information (i.e., job completion times and queue times) to determine resources to be assigned jobs for processing (by the resources), the jobs to be processed being based on inputs received from a user (e.g., advertiser) to create visual content (e.g., advertisements) for the user (e.g., advertiser), as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; and/or (ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A)-(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) 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. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of resources allocation of jobs (i.e., workloads) using job completion times and queue times of resources to determine the resources to be assigned the jobs (for processing by the resources). SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Examiner notes that Applicant's recited use or usage of “a trained machine learning system” as recited in independent Claims 1, 8 and 16 appears as a high-level black box with no detail about the trained machine learning algorithm/system itself or any machine learning processes, such as for example: (1) how Applicant's machine learning system is/was trained “using a plurality of actual job completion times”; or (2) how Applicant's trained machine learning system operates on input data (e.g., “actual job completion times”) to produce an output(s), such as Applicant’s “job completion times” and “queue times” as recited in each of independent Claims 1, 8 and 16. In addition, Examiner notes that no detail of any training algorithm appears to be mentioned in Applicant's disclosure and, therefore, no specific way of training the algorithm/model exists within Applicant's recited use of “a trained machine learning system”. Consequently, Applicant's mere recitation to “trained machine learning” is not sufficient to amount to a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis. In addition, although the claims require: (independent Claims 1, 8 and 16) determining time information (i.e., job completion times and queue times); (Claims 1, 8, 12 and 16) “so as to load balance”; (Claims 6-7) comparing times for Δ time; and (Claim 7) determine if a time is within a percentage % of actual time, these temporal techniques encompass mathematical concepts in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., “distributed computing environments” per Blanc at ¶ [0062] — distributed remote computer processing of jobs involving information received from a client/advertiser device having a user interface to input/select information, such as illustrated in Figures 1A-1B of Applicant’s drawings), and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, using, generating, updating, returning, assigning and providing, as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner notes that each of Claims 8-15 is drawn to a method; however, the method steps do not recite, require, or indicate implementation by a particular machine since none of limitations recited in Applicant’s method claims are performed by any computer or processing device since recited use of a computing device encompasses a situation where the computing device does no more than assist/help a person perform such steps/processes or thoughts when the person is using the computing device. Even if a computer/machine was implied in method Claims 8-15, Applicant’s claim limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and would require no more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., distributed remote computer processing of jobs involving information received from a client/advertiser device having a user interface to input/select information, such as illustrated in Figures 1A-1B of Applicant’s drawings), and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, using, generating, updating, assigning, returning and providing, as further explained below. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in the Claims 1-7 are performed by the generically recited “one or more processors” while limitations recited in the Claims 16-20 are performed by the generically recited “at least one processor of a computing system”, these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., distributed remote computer processing of jobs involving information received from a client/advertiser device having a user interface to input/select information, such as illustrated in Figures 1A-1B of Applicant’s drawings), and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, using, generating, updating, returning, assigning and providing, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: generating a user interface including a graphical interface configured to receive a plurality of inputs for creating visual digital content, the graphical interface including 1st, 2nd and 3rd portions that are configured to receive information for creating the visual digital content; causing the user interface to be presented on a client device; receiving 1st, 2nd and 3rd interactions with the respective 1st, 2nd and 3rd portions of the graphical interface; job loads associated with a plurality of computing resources (e.g., a first plurality of computing resources that are in communication with a computing system); using a trained machine learning system that was trained using a plurality of actual job completion times; each and every of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of receiving, assigning, compiling a plurality of job outputs, and returning; (only Claim 1) a computing system comprising one or more processors and a memory storing program instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform; causing the user interface to be presented; and recited-phrase “so as to load balance processing of the plurality of jobs across the second plurality of computing resources” in view of MPEP § 2111.04 and MPEP § 2173.05(q) addressing a process that “merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced”; (only Claims 5 and 13) a selectable link; (only Claims 6, 15 and 20) providing further training input and updating the trained machine learning system based on the further training input; (only independent Claim 8) “generating, without further input from the client device, a first job, a second job, and a third job to be performed by a first computing resource, a second computing resource, and a third computing resource, wherein: the first job includes segmenting the video content item into a first segment and a second segment; the second job includes generating a call to action display based at least in part on the text input; and the third job includes interleaving the call to action display between the first segment and the second segment”; as well as “so as to load balance processing of the first job, the second, job, and the third job across the first plurality of computing resources” in view of MPEP §§ 2111.04 and 2173.05(q); (only Claim 11) “the first job further includes segmenting the video content item into a third segment; the second job further includes generating a second call to action display based at least in part on the second text input; and the third job further includes interleaving the second call to action display between the second segment and the third segment”; (only Claim 12) “generating an outro display to be included in the visual digital content” and “so as to load balance processing of the first job, the second, job, the third job, and the fourth job across the first plurality of computing resources”; (only Claims 14 and 19) updating information stored and maintained in a datastore; (only independent Claim 16) “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions” executable “by at least one processor of a computing system” to cause the computing system to perform; recited “generate, without further input from the client device, a plurality of jobs to be performed by a plurality of computing resources to process the video file, the first text input, and the background color to produce the digital content in which the first text input is interleaved between a first segment of the video file and a second segment of the video file in accordance with the template, wherein: a first job of the plurality of jobs includes segmenting the video file into at least the first segment and the second segment; a second job of the plurality of jobs includes generating a first call to action display based at least in part on the first text input and the background color; and a third job of the plurality of jobs includes interleaving the first call to action display between the first segment and the second segment”; as well as each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of assigning; and (only Claim 18) assign the fourth job to a fourth computing resource of the plurality of computing resources. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of receiving, using, generating, updating, returning, assigning and providing — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide conventional computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of receiving, using, generating, updating, returning, assigning and providing, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (“distributed computing environments” per Blanc at ¶ [0062]) or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of receiving encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the steps of using, determining and generating encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition); each of the steps of updating encompasses a data saving or depositing function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Cyberfone”; and Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data storage}; each of the steps of comparing encompasses a simple mathematical/algebraic function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., Bilski, Freddie Mac, and In re Abele}; and each of the steps of returning, assigning, compiling and providing encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure (i.e., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0095781 of Blanc et al. (“Blanc”), which corresponds to this patent application, mentions that “a server system 600, such as a remote computing resource” (paragraph [0053] of Blanc) “…can include any appropriate hardware and software for integrating with the data store 618 as needed to execute aspects of the described implementations” (paragraph [0058] of Blanc with emphases added by Examiner). Furthermore, Blanc at paragraph [0062] of Applicant’s disclosure states that “The concepts disclosed herein may be applied within …general-purpose computing systems, and distributed computing environments” (emphases added by Examiner). For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on August 13, 2025, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 13-18) Applicant asserts that the independent claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Please see updated/modified § 101 rejections above regarding Applicant’s independent claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of independent Claims 2, 8 and 16.
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0090220 of Aubespin et al. (hereinafter “Aubespin”) for “FIG. 2A is …. advertisement template 12 includes a creative template 22 and a keyword template 24” —Aubespin at ¶ [0023]; “FIG. 2B is …advertisement template 12. The fixed component 26 of the creative template 22 includes text inviting the reader to book a hotel visit. The placeholders 28 in the creative template include a space for a heading, a space for a city, and a space for a price. The fixed component 26 of the keyword template 24 includes the phrase “hotel in.” The placeholders 28 of the keyword template 24 include a space after “hotel in” for a city, and a separate space for the city. The phrase “hotel in [city]” is designated a specific match, while “[city]” alone is designated as a general match” —Aubespin at ¶ [0031]; and “FIGS. 2C and 2D show …advertisements 20 …created using the exemplary advertisement template 12 of FIG. 2B” —Aubespin at ¶ [0032].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0023863 of COHEN-MARTIN (hereinafter “Cohen-Martin”) for “automatic generation of dynamic video content is provided” — Cohen-Martin at ¶ [0276]; “Advertising that appears during the video content that a user is watching” —Cohen-Martin at ¶ [0010]; “…video clip…contain placeholders…to be replaced with content at run-time, for example, while…playing the video” —Cohen-Martin at ¶ [0294]; “The MIXER…to help Web advertisers…edit film (video) clips and play edited film (video) clips. The module is executed as a FLASH APPLET” —Cohen-Martin at ¶ [0222]; Figures 8a, 8b, 9a and 10-12 of Cohen-Martin; and “The template has a "placeholder" for insertion of dynamic personalized components, for example audio, text, images in the form of logo, telephone number, etc. Changing the info in the place holders is called personalization for different clients, different products, different outlets, etc. The content is variable and can be changed endlessly for a variety of media usages and a variety of targets. Each instantiation over the Internet can even be targeted to each individual recipient by adding "Hello John Doe" to an ad directed at John Doe and "Hello Jane Doe" to an ad directed at Jane Doe, etc.” —Cohen-Martin at ¶ [0122].
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 Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621