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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 04/08/2026.
Claims 1, 5-6 , 14, 17-19 have been amended.
Claims 4 , 9 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3,5-8,10-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 04/08/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-3,5-8,10-21 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “ The claims do not merely recite an abstract idea because they rely on computing systems to ingest a creative asset by storing a record of the creative asset in a standardized data structure by mapping values of creative asset information in a source-specific data structure to a unified creative asset data structure, ingest a campaign by storing a record of the campaign in a standardized data structure by mapping values of campaign information in a source-specific data structure to a unified campaign data structure, associate or assign the creative asset to a campaign placement by merging the creative asset information from the record of the creative asset with the campaign information from the record of the campaign, and triggering automatic quality control of the creative asset in the campaign placement during an active campaign by providing an indication of the creative asset in the campaign placement to a quality control system that verifies quality of the creative asset with respect to specifications of at least one of an ad server and a content provision system associated with the active campaign, none of which is abstract (page 6/19)”.
Examiner disagrees. the recitation of : to ingest a creative asset by storing a record of the creative asset in a standardized data structure by mapping values of creative asset information in a source-specific data structure to a unified creative asset data structure, ingest a campaign by storing a record of the campaign in a standardized data structure by mapping values of campaign information in a source-specific data structure to a unified campaign data structure, associate or assign the creative asset to a campaign placement by merging the creative asset information from the record of the creative asset with the campaign information from the record of the campaign, and triggering automatic quality control of the creative asset in the campaign placement during an active campaign by providing an indication of the creative asset in the campaign placement to a quality control system that verifies quality of the creative asset with respect to specifications of at least one of an ad server and a content provision system associated with the active campaign is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). The use of the computing system are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-3,5-8,10-21 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “the present claims provide improvements such as "increased processing efficiencies and reduced processing delays in offering creatives, which, in turn, may increase revenues generated from the offered creatives." Id. at paragraph 6. Accordingly, Applicant submits that even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite a judicial exception, the claims are directed to a practical application and therefore are directed to patent- eligible subject matter (page 8/19)”.
Examiner disagrees. "increased processing efficiencies and reduced processing delays in offering creatives, which, in turn, may increase revenues generated from the offered creatives” are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “one or more processors of one or more computers, system and graphical user interface (GUI)”, as evidenced by applicant specification of paragraphs 35 and 45, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims of claims 1-3,5-8,10-21 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “the present claims are analogous to claim 1 of Example 42 because both recite receiving data and storing a record of the received data using a standardized structure regardless of the source, which results in improvements over prior methods. Based at least on the similarity of independent claims 1, 17, and 19, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 17, and 19, as well as the claims depending therefrom, are patentable at Prong Two of the revised Step 2A analysis. Revised Step 2B Analysis: Independent claims 1, 17, and 19 provide an inventive concept (page 10/19)”.
Examiner disagrees. Although the Applicant tries to compare the instant invention to an improvement of computer operation. However, In example 42, the claim recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea). Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims of claims 1-3,5-8,10-21 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ Under Step 2B of the test outlined in the MPEP, if additional elements recited by the claims amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception, then the claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP § 2106.05. Additional claim elements may amount to "significantly more," for example, by providing an inventive concept by adding a particular limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. See id. Applicant respectfully submits that even if the Examiner determines that independent claims 1, 17, and 19 are directed towards an abstract idea and do not incorporate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, independent claims 1, 17, and 19 recite an inventive concept. Indeed, the claims provide specific elements for improving the end-to-end creative asset offering process, from creative asset ingestion and quality control to activation and reporting, through uniform ingestion processes. See Application, paragraph 6 (page 11/19)”.
Examiner disagrees. Provide specific elements for improving the end-to-end creative asset offering process, from creative asset ingestion and quality control to activation and reporting, through uniform ingestion processes are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “one or more processors of one or more computers, system and graphical user interface (GUI)”, as evidenced by applicant specification of paragraphs 35 and 45, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims of claims 1-3,5-8,10-21 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ similar to Bascom in which filtering content was performed by a remote ISP server rather than software running on local client computers, thereby providing an inventive concept through a non-conventional arrangement, the present claims provide a non- conventional entity (e.g., the creative gateway of independent claim 17) to facilitate the end-to- end creative asset offering process through uniform ingestion processes, in stark contrast to conventional arrangements, in which end-to-end management and tracking of creatives and campaigns is virtually impossible and piecemeal reporting via numerous different channels is used due to the independent nature of conventional creative asset sources, quality control platforms, and ad decisioning platforms. See id. at paragraphs 5 and 6. Applicant submits that the ordered combination of the recitations therein transforms the alleged abstract idea into a particular application of that idea. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of independent claims 1, 17, and 19, as well as all claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (page 13/19)”.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claimed invention and Bascom have different claim sets and different fact patterns. in Bascom, the Courts concluded that the claim limitation takes as an “ordered combination” under step two are an inventive concept, sufficient for patent eligibility under 35 USC 101. Because of the ordered combination elements, the claims in Bascom were considered to improve the functionality of the computer, and thus amounted to significantly more. Unlike the arrangement in BASCOM Global Internet Services Inc. V. AT&T Mobility LLC, the instant claims do not constitute an arrangement of parts, but rather conventional servers, processors, etc. In the instant claims’ invocation of computers, networks and displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. Thus, the claims at issue do not require any non-conventional computer, network or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”, but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices. Nothing in the claims, understood in the light of the specifications, requires anything other than off-the-shelf conventional computer, network and display technology for gathering, sending and presenting the desired information. Therefore, the instant claims are in no way similar to Bascom , which is directed to software, at a remote server, enabling individualized/customizable filtering websites/Internet content. Thus, the claimed invention, when implemented, does not improve the functionality of the computer nor does it improve a technology/technical field. There is no technical evidence/technical support in the Applicant's Specification of technical improvements or of a technical solution to a technical problem. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-3,5-8,10-21 under 35 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1-3,5-8,10-21 rejection under 35 USC § 102/103, applicant’s arguments are considered, and the claim rejection under 35 USC § 102/103 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3,5-8,10-21 are directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-3,5-8,10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
receive creative asset information from a creative asset source in a first source-specific data structure;
in response to receiving the creative asset information, ingest a creative asset by storing a record of the creative asset in one or more data stores, wherein the record is stored in a unified creative asset data structure that it is standardized for [[all]] a plurality of creative asset sources providing creative asset information to the one or more computers, and wherein the record comprises the creative asset information stored in accordance with the unified creative asset data structure by mapping values of the creative asset information in the first source- specific data structure to the unified creative asset data structure;
receive campaign information from a digital planning system different than the creative asset source in a second source-specific data structure; in response to receiving the campaign information, ingest a campaign by storing a record of the campaign in the one or more data stores, wherein the record of the campaign is stored in a unified campaign data structure that is standardized for digital planning systems providing campaign information to the one or more computers, and wherein the record of the campaign comprises the campaign information stored in accordance with the unified campaign data structure by mapping values of the campaign information in the second source-specific data structure to the unified campaign data structure;
generate a launch doc, indicating an association of creative assets with campaign placements, by merging the creative asset information from the record of the creative asset with the campaign information from the record of the campaign; and render the launch doc via a launch doc graphical user interface (GUI)”;
in response to associating the creative asset with a campaign placement in the launch doc, trigger automatic quality control of the creative asset in the campaign placement during an active campaign by providing an indication of the creative asset in the campaign placement to a quality control system, wherein the quality control system verifies quality of the creative asset with respect to specifications of at least one of an ad server and a content provision system associated with the active campaign;
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of using a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions, and a database (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer component).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receive creative asset information from a creative asset source in a first source-specific data structure;
receive campaign information from a digital planning system different than the creative asset source in a second source-specific data structure; in response to receiving the campaign information, ingest a campaign by storing a record of the campaign in the one or more data stores,
More The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions, and a database. “Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “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 FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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 the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 35 and 45of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database and the User Interface are generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receive creative asset information from a creative asset source in a first source-specific data structure;
receive campaign information from a digital planning system different than the creative asset source in a second source-specific data structure; in response to receiving the campaign information, ingest a campaign by storing a record of the campaign in the one or more data stores,
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 17 and 19.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims merely add further details that narrow that abstract idea of, without significantly more. The dependent claims 2-16, 18 and 20 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), Therefore, the dependent claims 2-16, 18 and 20, only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-3,5-8,10-21 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims recite combination of features of which Examiner is unable to find a prior art that discloses the claimed features . The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Buchalter, US Pub No: 2021/0365958 A1, teaches The present disclosure is directed to methods and systems for determining competitive market values for an ad impression on an advertiser exchange. An engine executing on a device may receive a candidate set of inputs associated with ad impressions. The engine may determine competitive market values for an ad impression on an advertiser exchange. The engine may determine candidate clearing prices based on the candidate set of inputs and history of clearing prices on the advertiser exchange. The engine may generate, based on the candidate clearing prices, a competitive market value prediction for the ad impression on the advertiser exchange. The competitive market value prediction may comprise a distribution function of predicted clearing prices on the advertiser exchange. The engine may generate, based on the competitive market value prediction, a fair market value bid for the ad impression in the context of a specific ad campaign.
Sheth et al, US Pub No: 2020/0387937 A1, teaches A content compliance system uses machine learning to generate objective verification that content complies with brand criteria. The content compliance system may force the company to select specific brand criteria listed on a user interface. The selected brand criteria are then readily displayed to the creative agency. The content compliance system then compares the selected brand criteria with content generated by the creative agency. The content compliance system uses machine learning algorithms to generate a compliance score that provides a real-time objective indication of the compliance of the creative content with the selected brand criteria. The creative agency can then modify the creative content and receive a real-time updated compliance score.
Shivastava et al, US Pub No: 2021/0107141 A1, teaches Frameworks and techniques for integration of heterogeneous machine learning (ML) models into robotic process automation (RPA) workflows are provided. This may be accomplished via a seamless drag-and-drop interface that allows deployment of ML models into an RPA workflow. Via a framework, these heterogeneous models may be provided by customers, third parties, and/or partners and integrated into the RPA workflow. The framework may provide a straightforward way to deploy machine learning models via a conductor and to manage model versioning and create/retrieve/update/delete (CRUD). The framework may facilitate integration of different models into the RPA workflow through the steps of uploading, validating, publishing, and deploying models.
Kang et al, US Pub No: 2016/0295299 A1, teaches Methods and systems are described for providing advertising services to devices with dynamic ad creative localization for a user. In one embodiment, a system includes a storage medium to store one or more software programs and a dynamic ad creative localization unit that is configured to receive an ad campaign including at least one video ad from an ad server of the system, to apply filters to the ad campaign based on device characteristics, geographical data for the device, and a language of the device of the user in order to select an ad payload including a video ad of the ad campaign, to determine a language for the device of the user, and to localize any text in the ad campaign including the at least video ad based on the language of the device.
Titus et al, US Pub No: 2017/0316465 A1, teaches A system and methods for creating an instant interactive visualization and providing a display of what an advertisement may appear as on any published web page. In some implementations, the system and methods provide an ad-context visualization and mock-up tool that enables a user to view mock-up representations of one or more advertisements and show prospective or current advertising clients with ease what a particular advertisement will ultimately appear as in a context specified by a user.
Bodin et al, US Pub No: 2020/0160377 A1, teaches The present disclosure relates to digital experience development platforms and, more particularly, one or more components, systems and methods thereof of an intelligent digital experience development platform (IDXDP) configured to assist different users in the development, design and deployment of digital applications. A computer-implemented method comprises: receiving, by a computing device of a cloud-based campaign system, a campaign for products or services from a marketing system via a network; providing, by the computing device, the campaign to one or more participants on the network; obtaining, by the computing device, feedback from the one or more participants regarding the campaign; analyzing, by an artificial intelligence tool of the computing device, the feedback to generate marketing analytics information; and providing, by the computing device, the marketing analytics information to the marketing system via the network.
As thus, claims 1-3,5-8,10-21 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection above
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Cook et al, US Pub No: 2018/0096417 A1, teaches Systems and methods are provided for object discovery and object mapping through an application with a Graphical User Interface (GUI). Objects are discovered through an object recommendation channel and through user input of key words and/or key phrases. Each object includes an Intensity of Interest (IoI), which is a relative preference for an object reflected by relative size in the object map. Additionally, the object map provides a visual display which indicates relationships among objects.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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 the Patent Application 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
