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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 11/20/2025.
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Claims 21-40 are currently amended and examined below.
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 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a nature phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 21-40 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 21 recites (additional elements underlined):
A method comprising:
obtaining, at script creation system including a processor and associated memory, a request for the script creation system to generate a requested script in accordance with, one or more requestor-specified attributes supplied by a requestor;
obtaining, at the script creation system, historical scripts, wherein particular historical scripts are associated with particular creative parameters,
the historical scripts are further associated with acceptance statuses of historical media items previously generated based on the historical scripts;
obtaining, by the script creation system, a default script selected based on a correspondence between the particular creative parameters and the requestor-specified attributes; and
modifying the default script to generate the requested script based, at least in part, on creative parameters associated with a plurality of historical scripts having acceptance statuses indicating acceptance.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified above do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing is related to commerce and economy, a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) outlined above are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment). Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2B, No).
Claims 22-27 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 21 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claims 22-23 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claims 22-23 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 24 recites the additional elements of “a graphical user interface to” and “wherein the graphical user interface includes different objects configured to”. Claim 25 recites the additional elements of “wherein the different input objects include: at least one input object to … at least one input object to … at least one input object to … at least one input object to”. Claim 26 recites the additional elements “to an requestor system”, “page”, and “by the script creation system”. Claim 27 recites the additional element “using natural language processing”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 28 recites (additional elements underlined):
A system comprising:
a processor configured;
memory coupled to the processor and storing a program of instructions,
a communications interface coupled to the processor;
the processor configured to execute a program of instructions stored in the memory, the program of instructions including:
at least one instruction to obtain, at a script creation system, a request for the script creation system to generate a requested scrip in accordance with one or more requestor-specified attributes supplied by a requestor;
at least one instruction to obtain, at the script creation system, historical scripts, wherein the particular historical scripts are associated with particular creative parameters;
the historical scripts are further associated with acceptance statuses of historical media items previously generated based on the historical scripts;
at least one instruction to determine, by the script creation system, a default script selected based on a correspondence between the particular creative parameter and the requestor-specified attributes; and
at least one instruction to modify the default script to generate the requested script based, at least in part, on creative parameters associated with a plurality of historical scripts having acceptance statuses indicating acceptance.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 21, claim 28 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mental process and certain methods of organizing human activities). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 21, claim 28 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 29-34 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 28 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 29 recites the additional elements “wherein the program of instructions further includes at least one instruction to”. Claim 30 recites the additional elements “wherein the program of instructions further includes at least one instructions to … at least one instruction to”. Claim 31 recites the additional elements “wherein the program of instructions further includes: at least one instruction to”, “a graphical user interface to” and “wherein the graphical user interface includes different objects configured to”. Claim 32 recites the additional elements of “wherein the different input objects include: at least one input object to … at least one input object to … at least one input object to … at least one input object to”. Claim 33 recites the additional elements “wherein the program of instructions further includes: at least one instruction to”, “to an requestor system”, “page”, and “by the script creation system”. Claim 34 recites the additional element “wherein the program of instructions further includes: at least one instruction to use natural language processing” and “at least one instruction”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 35 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 28. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 28, claim 35 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mathematical concept, certain method of organizing human activities, and mental processes). Claim 35 recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program of instructions configured to be executed by a processor, the program of instructions including: “at least one instructions to”, “at a script creation system”, “for the script creation system to”, “at least one instructions to”, “at the script creation system”, “at least one instruction to”, “by the script creation system”, and “at least one instructions to”. However, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 28, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 36-40 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 35 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 36 recites the additional elements “wherein the program of instructions further includes at least one instruction to”. Claim 37 recites the additional elements “wherein the program of instructions further includes at least one instructions to … at least one instruction to”. Claim 38 recites the additional elements “wherein the program of instructions further includes: at least one instruction to”, “a graphical user interface to” and “wherein the graphical user interface includes different objects configured to”. Claim 39 recites the additional elements of “wherein the different input objects include: at least one input object to … at least one input object to … at least one input object to … at least one input object to”. Claim 40 recites the additional elements “wherein the program of instructions further includes: at least one instruction to”, “to an requestor system”, “page”, and “by the script creation system”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after an exhaustive search on the claims as currently amended, the claims currently overcome prior art. While the prior art teach some of the elements of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at Applicant’s claimed invention unless one was using Applicant’s claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Han et al. (US 2019/0355024 A1) discloses a system and method for analyzing previously-consumed creatives to generate a model that can be used to generate or otherwise configure the attributes of a creative (e.g., audio file, voiceover, image, etc.). In an example embodiments, previously-consumed creatives are analyzed to determine which attributes of the creatives are most effective in, for example, driving action. However, Han et al. does not appear to disclose or render obvious the claims as currently amended.
Stanis et al. (US 2008/0040318 A1) discloses a system and method for selecting creative templates based on a category of an entity and other attribute data. For example, a first set of creative templates may be eligible for selection for on-line booksellers, while a second set of creative templates may be eligible for selection for realtors. The creative templates may also be generated based on performance analysis of existing creatives. For example, the click-through rates and conversion rates that exceed a threshold may be used to generate one or more creative templates. However, Stanis et al. also does not appear to disclose or render obvious the claims as currently amended.
Munoz Torres et al. (US 2014/0324604 A1) discloses the concept of advertisers accepting advertising creative proposals. However, Munoz Torres et al. also does not appear to disclose or render obvious the claims as currently amended.
Weldermariam et al. (US 2019/0349251 A1) discloses the use of multi-agent planning. However, Weldermariam et al. also does not appear to disclose or render obvious the claims as currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument: “More specifically, the amended claims recite a technically improved script creation system that solves a technical problem. As noted in the Applicant's Specification notes that even current automated systems require a human to provide detailed creative input regarding each specific aspect of a new creative. See, Applicant's Specification, [0003] ( "Even though parts of the manual creative-generation process have been automated, for example by gathering human input using a web page, the same human inputs are required each time a new creative is generated, regardless of whether the creative generation process uses a manual, automated, or hybrid manual/automated technique. Requiring a human to provide detailed creative input regarding each specific aspect of a new creative can be inefficient, costly, and may result in generation of less- than optimal creatives.")
The disclosed and claimed script creation system provides functionality not available in un-improved script creation system - namely the ability to reduce the burden of system operators by reducing the amount of data a human needs to provide to a scripting system. Thus, according to the Applicant's Specification, the claimed invention improves the efficiency of the scripting system while also improving the script outputs. Thus, the claimed invention provides a technically improved script creation system, and is therefore patent eligible as NOT being directed to a judicial exception to patentability under the Alice Analysis.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, MPEP 2106.05(a) explains that “mere automation of manual processes” is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Second, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Third, unlike in McRO in which the claimed invention allowed computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expression in animated characters that previously could only be performed by human animators which provided an improvement to an existing technological process, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. “It is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks” (see p. 24 of McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The specification here fails to provide a teaching about how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology, nor do the claims recite a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention. The claims merely use the computer as a tool instead of an improved computer capability. Therefore, the claims as currently amended still do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621