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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e), was filed in this application after final rejection. since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 06/03/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 17,19-20 have been amended.
Claim 21 has been added.
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 06/03/2025 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 1-3,5-8,10-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Step 2A - Prong One: Independent claims 1, 17, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that “ the claims do not merely recite an abstract idea because they rely on computing systems to ingest creative assets by storing records of the creative assets 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 campaigns by storing records of the campaigns in a standardized data structure by mapping values of campaign information in a source-specific data structure to a unified campaign data structure, and associate or assign creative assets to campaign placements by merging the creative asset information from the records of the creative assets with the campaign information from the records of the campaigns, none of which is abstract (page 5/13)”.
Examiner disagrees. The recitation of : to ingest creative assets by storing records of the creative assets 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 campaigns by storing records of the campaigns in a standardized data structure by mapping values of campaign information in a source-specific data structure to a unified campaign data structure, and associate or assign creative assets to campaign placements by merging the creative asset information from the records of the creative assets with the campaign information from the records of the campaigns 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.
The same is true for the purported technological fields of “automatically associating or assigning creative assets (i.e., digital advertisements) from a variety of creative asset sources to campaign placements associated with a number of campaigns (e.g., digital advertising campaigns) indicated in campaign information from a digital planning system different than the creative asset sources”. The purported improvements are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself that is merely applied using a general purpose computer ( computing systems) . As such, any purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Also , the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
storing records of the creative assets 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 campaigns by storing records of the campaigns in a standardized data structure by mapping values of campaign information in a source-specific data structure to a unified campaign data structure,
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.MPEP 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea, and the claim rejection of claims 1-3,5-8,10-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Examiner notes the recitation of : to ingest creative assets by storing records of the creative assets in a standardized data structure… is an intended use, aspirational, and typical of a computing environment.
Step 2A - Prong Two: Independent claims 1, 17, and 19 DO Not integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of the alleged judicial exception
Applicant argues that “the independent claims, as a whole, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. For example, the claims recite a specific computer- implemented process for receiving creative asset information from a creative asset source in a first source-specific data structure, ingesting a creative asset, in response, by storing a record of the creative asset in one or more data stores in a unified creative asset data structure that is standardized for a plurality of creative asset sources, where the record includes 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, receiving campaign information from a digital planning system different than the creative asset source in a second source-specific data structure, ingesting a campaign, in response, by storing a record of the campaign in the one or more data stores in a unified campaign data structure that is standardized for digital planning systems, where the record of the campaign includes 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, and associating or assigning creative assets to 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 (page 6/13)”.
Examiner disagrees. As noted in the prior office action, and in the proceeding section above, the recitation of : process for receiving creative asset information from a creative asset source in a first source-specific data structure, ingesting a creative asset, in response, by storing a record of the creative asset in one or more data stores in a unified creative asset data structure that is standardized for a plurality of creative asset sources, where the record includes 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, receiving campaign information from a digital planning system different than the creative asset source in a second source-specific data structure, ingesting a campaign, in response, by storing a record of the campaign in the one or more data stores in a unified campaign data structure that is standardized for digital planning systems, where the record of the campaign includes 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, and associating or assigning creative assets to 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 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.
The purported improvements are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself that is merely applied using a general purpose computer ( computing systems). As such, an purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In order for an improvement to a technology or technological filed to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements" which in this case they are not. The claimed additional elements are merely a general purpose computer upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2.
As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims -3,5-8,10-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “indeed, by storing a record of a creative asset in one or more data stores using a standardized, unified creative asset data structure for a plurality of creative asset sources, storing a record of a campaign in the one or more data stores using a standardized, unified campaign data structure for digital planning systems, and mapping or merging creative asset information from the record of the creative asset with campaign information from the record of the campaign, the claims provide improvements by removing human subjectivity and allowing for efficient mapping of creative assets to campaign placements. See Application, paragraphs 33 and 34. Additionally, triggering automatic quality control of a creative asset in response to ingesting the creative asset, as generally recited by dependent claim 5 and similarly recited by independent claim 17, allows for new timing efficiencies by triggering quality control without reliance on human interaction. See id. at paragraph 26. Further, generating a launch doc or a centralized record of creative asset information assigned to campaign placements, as generally recited by independent claims 1 and 17 respectively, may allow each of the entities involved in implementing campaigns and/or creative assets to have a single source of truth, which may streamline the end-to-end creative process offering process. See id. at paragraph 5, 6, 52, and 73. Therefore, 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 7/13)”.
Examiner disagrees. storing a record of a creative asset in one or more data stores using a standardized, unified creative asset data structure for a plurality of creative asset sources, storing a record of a campaign in the one or more data stores using a standardized, unified campaign data structure for digital planning systems, and mapping or merging creative asset information from the record of the creative asset with campaign information from the record of the campaign, the claims provide improvements by removing human subjectivity and allowing for efficient mapping of creative assets to campaign placements; and/ or triggering automatic quality control of a creative asset in response to ingesting the creative asset; and/ or allows for new timing efficiencies by triggering quality control without reliance on human interaction; and/ or generating a launch doc or a centralized record of creative asset information assigned to campaign placements; and / or allow each of the entities involved in implementing campaigns and/or creative assets to have a single source of truth, which may streamline the end-to-end creative process offering process fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method ( increased processing efficiencies and reduced processing delays in offering creatives, which, in turn, may increase revenues generated from the offered creatives) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are ““computer, processor , GUI (claim 1); digital planning system and centralized record, gateway (claims 17); server (claim 19)” , 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. user interfaces (Uls) and application programming interface (API’s) for performing user input is old and well known as per Usability.gov. As per Affinity v. Direct TV such generic user interfaces are generic computer components. Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (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 there 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.). Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-3,5-8,10-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Examiner notes: it has been held that “Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (CA FC 1993)” .
Applicant argues that “uniform ingestion methods provide improvements to creative asset offering by removing human subjectivity and allowing for efficient mapping of creative assets to campaign placements. See Application, paragraphs 33 and 34. Therefore, Applicant submits 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 (page 9/13)”.
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). The instant claim recites : receiving data and storing a record of the received data using a standardized structure regardless of the source, which is not an improvement in an additional elements. As thus, there is no improvement to the operation of the computer itself, the computer is still the same computer and operates in the same manner in which it always has by executing code as required by the software for receiving data and storing a record of the received data using a standardized structure regardless of the source.
Thus, the operation of the computer itself does not change by practicing the claim invention. Merely applying an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application user Step 2a, Prong 2. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-3,5-8,10-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ this specific computer-implemented process for automatically associating or assigning creative assets (i.e., digital advertisements) to campaign placements allows computing systems (e.g., one or more computers, a creative gateway) to "increase processing efficiencies in the end-to-end creative offering, by providing process uniformity across creative providers and bridging each of the independent systems involved in this process." Application, paragraph 6. Indeed, the claims recited specific limitations that allow the computing systems to remove human subjectivity, allow for efficient mapping of creative assets to campaign placements, and provide a single source of truth by creating standardized records through uniform ingestion processes for creative assets and campaigns. See Application, paragraphs 5, 33, 34, 52, and 73. 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 11/13)”.
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. Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158 at 6-7.
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 1-3,5-8,10-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, claim(s) 1-3,5-8,10-16 are directed to a manufacturer (i.e. a non transitory computer medium); claims 17-18 and 21 are directed to a machine (i.e. an apparatus); 19-20 are directed to a method (i.e. a process). The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The analysis is as follows: Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of storing and launching with a unified campaign data structure form a plurality of resources. Claim 1 recites the following an abstract idea limitations of: “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)”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP 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 “one or more processors of one or more computers, system and graphical user interface (GUI). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 a computer, or merely uses a computer 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. MPEP 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.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of one or more computers, database and graphical user interface (GUI) (claim 1) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“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 a computer, 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 a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 35 and 45); 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 are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receive creative asset information from a creative asset source; in response to receiving the creative asset information, ingest a creative asset by storing a record of the creative asset in an associated data store, .. and receive campaign information from a digital planning different than the creative asset source (claim 1);
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.MPEP 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, the dependent claim (s), further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims 1, 17 and 19.
Regarding Claim 2, 7-8, 16 , 18 and 21 , the claim recites additional elements of : “machine learning , transcoding , robotic process automation (RPA) script, pixel, GUI and pattern recognition” respectively. These elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A- Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Accordingly, the claim (s) fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7,10-11,13-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buchalter, US Pub No: 2021/0365958 A1.
As per claims 1,19-20, Buchalter teaches:
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 an associated data store, wherein the record is stored in a unified creative asset data structure that it is standardized for 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;
See at least paragraph 127 (A BI suite may provide a range of features such as interactive dashboards, proactive intelligence delivery and alerts, ad hoc queries and analysis, operational and volume reporting, online analytical processing (OLAP) analysis and presentation, dynamic predictive intelligence, disconnected analytics, unified metadata processing and ETL from any data source); paragraph 132 (receiving, via an interface of a demand side platform (DSP), at least one constraint and at least one goal for an online advertising campaign from a user (251). A bidding module of the demand side platform receives a first impression opportunity for bidding, the first impression opportunity accompanied by a first set of data delivered via a first advertising exchange (253). The bidding module receives a second impression opportunity for bidding, the second impression opportunity accompanied by a second set of data delivered via a second advertising exchange (255). The bidding module normalizes the first set of data and the second set of data (257). An engine of the demand side platform determines to bid on the first impression opportunity or the second impression opportunity based on the normalized first and second sets of data (259));
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;
See at least paragraphs 133-135; 154-158; paragraph 154 (the DSP normalizes the interfaces to each of the plurality of exchanges. As the DSP is aware of and understands the similarities and difference between each of the exchanges, the DSP can normalize these similarities and differences such that a single interface for establishing and executing a campaign across the exchanges. The normalization may occur in multiple ways, such as providing a data abstraction, data interface and/or data structures, such as a unified or normalized data interface, in the DSP that represents the common parameters across the exchanges. When the DSP interfaces with the exchange, the DSP may translate these normalized data structures to the parameters and variable names expected by the specific exchange. For those parameters not common across all the supported exchanges, the DSP may include logic, functions or operations to provide values for those parameters that are appropriate for the transaction when interacting with the exchange. The values for these parameters may be data tracked or managed by the DSP and stored in a DSP database, such as a user database or an exchange related database. Likewise, when receiving responses from the exchange, the DSP may translate the common exchange parameters into the unified or normalized data interface and non-common parameters are tracked and managed by the DSP, such as via a user or exchange database);
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) ;
See at least paragraphs 95-98; paragraph 98 (The data integration module may process and/or integrate any type or form of data from first, second and/or third parties, such as an advertiser (e.g., ad agency and/or client), a publisher, an ad exchange, ad network, third-parties like BlueKai, etc. The data integration module may comprise, interoperate or interface with the one or more custom interfaces described above and in connection with FIG. 2G. The data integration module may operate with a ETL module to extract and normalize data from various source); paragraph 109-119; paragraph 109 (The advertiser can use the interface to perform any of: (i) create a new REM campaign for an existing advertiser, or select from a list of pre-existing campaigns (e.g., under the Campaign Settings section of the interface), (ii) configure start/end date, price, spend and frequency (e.g., under the Campaign Settings section of the interface), (iii) select a pixel to use in a REM target segment campaign (e.g., under the Pixels section of the interface), (iv) enter an ad tag creative to be used in the campaign (e.g., under the Creatives section of the interface), and (vii) launch the REM campaign. A creative, as referenced above, may represent online ads that are referenced via ad tags. These online ads may be used to remarket to users); paragraph 105 (The DSP may provide an interface for the advertiser to specify, define, compose, develop, test, refine, modify and/or design an ad campaign, for example, as depicted in FIG. 2G); paragraph 106 (The interface may be any type or form of interface, such as a graphical user interface (GUI) and/or a command line interface. The interface may be a web interface or an application/software interface. Portions of the interface and interface content may be provided by a locally-executing application (e.g., software program) on a client machine 102);
As per claim 2, Buchalter teaches:
merge the creative asset information from the record of the creative asset with the campaign information from the record of the campaign using machine learning that identifies patterns in naming nomenclature in the creative asset information, the campaign information, or both to map the creative asset information with the campaign information (see at least paragraph 87-102; paragraph 87 (third-party segment information may include information related to a conversion (e.g., pattern of user behavior and/or advertising characteristics leading to a newsletter sign-up, registration, transaction, etc) as well as behavioral targeting data sourced or bought from ad networks); paragraphs 91-98; paragraph 91 ( Each custom interface may include standard and/or custom modules for receiving portions of information from the corresponding ad exchange. Each custom interface may support the appropriate communication protocol conversion or translation. Each custom interface may include filters for removing redundant and/or unsupported data received from an ad exchange or other third party providers (e.g., BlueKai). Each custom interface may include any type or form of extract, translate and load (ETL) capabilities to create a set of data or parameters in normalized, standard or generic (hereafter generally referred to as “normalized”) form for the corresponding ad exchange. The normalized set of parameters may include one or more of geo, system, REM, third-party segment, IXI, publisher (ID), channel, ad size, weekpart and daypart data pertaining to an impression opportunity); paragraph 98 (The data integration module may process and/or integrate any type or form of data from first, second and/or third parties, such as an advertiser (e.g., ad agency and/or client), a publisher, an ad exchange, ad network, third-parties like BlueKai, etc. The data integration module may comprise, interoperate or interface with the one or more custom interfaces described above and in connection with FIG. 2G. The data integration module may operate with a ETL module to extract and normalize data from various source); paragraph 99 (The brain engine may be built and configured for quickly processing massive data sets, applying machine learning against that data and deploying learnt real-time data into bidders. The brain engine may be implemented in the optimization layer of the DSP system);
As per claim 3, Buchalter teaches:
merge the creative asset information from the record of the creative asset with the campaign information from the record of the campaign by: identifying a drag and drop operation of a graphical creative asset indication in the launch doc GUI to a graphical campaign placement indication in the launch doc GUI; and associating a portion of the creative asset information pertaining to the graphical creative asset indication with a portion of the campaign information pertaining to the graphical campaign placement indication ( see at least paragraphs 95-98; 109-114; paragraph 98 (The data integration module may process and/or integrate any type or form of data from first, second and/or third parties, such as an advertiser (e.g., ad agency and/or client), a publisher, an ad exchange, ad network, third-parties like BlueKai, etc. The data integration module may comprise, interoperate or interface with the one or more custom interfaces described above and in connection with FIG. 2G. The data integration module may operate with a ETL module to extract and normalize data from various source); paragraph 106 (The interface may be any type or form of interface, such as a graphical user interface (GUI) and/or a command line interface. The interface may be a web interface or an application/software interface. Portions of the interface and interface content may be provided by a locally-executing application (e.g., software program) on a client machine 102); paragraph 114 (A user may include any type and form of configuration setting for a campaign via the interface. In some embodiments, a user (e.g., from an a agency) may identify a client (e.g., from a plurality of clients) for which the user is creating a campaign. The user may specify or select the type of campaign (e.g., REM, prospecting) to create or launch); paragraph 157 (the exchanges have different bid request and response parameters and different API formats and interfaces, the DSP platform provides a common or unified user interface, sometimes referred to a single interface, to the user to provide an efficient and easy input mechanism to setup and run campaigns for these different exchanges. The unified user interface removes these differences in the interface to the exchange so that the user can provide a campaign strategy via the unified interface that works across the exchanges without the user dealing with these differences. In one aspect, the unified user interface allows the user to setup and run a campaign agnostically the DSP);
As per claim 7, Buchalter teaches:
in response to ingesting the creative asset, trigger transcoding of the creative asset and traffic the transcoded creative asset ( see at least paragraphs 97, 147-158; paragraph 97 ( the DSP integration layer may include a number of modules, including but not limited to Supply and Workflow Integration (SWI), creative management and data integration. In some embodiments, the SWI module processes and/or integrates supply data (from impression opportunity sellers such as ad exchanges). The SWI module may also process and/or integrate workflow data. These data can include third-party analytics data, trafficking data); paragraph 147 (The bidder may operate responsive to a campaign set up via an interface that allows a requestor to setup campaign goals and constraints. Using a single interface to setup and request execution of a campaign, the bidder may execute the campaign to trade or match a plurality of advertisement placements to a plurality of impressions across a plurality of different exchanges); paragraph 154 (the DSP normalizes the interfaces to each of the plurality of exchanges. As the DSP is aware of and understands the similarities and difference between each of the exchanges, the DSP can normalize these similarities and differences such that a single interface for establishing and executing a campaign across the exchanges. The normalization may occur in multiple ways, such as providing a data abstraction, data interface and/or data structures, such as a unified or normalized data interface, in the DSP that represents the common parameters across the exchanges. When the DSP interfaces with the exchange, the DSP may translate these normalized data structures to the parameters and variable names expected by the specific exchange);
As per claim 10, Buchalter teaches:
render a claim GUI that enables a user to claim a primary trafficker, advertiser, vertical, agency, or any combination thereof of an associated creative asset;
receiving, via the claim GUI an assignment input of an assigned primary trafficker, assigned advertiser, assigned vertical, assigned agency, or any combination thereof; and
store the assignment input as an association of the associated creative asset ;
See at least paragraph 97 (The DSP integration layer may include a creative management module for storing, creating, updating, organizing, or otherwise managing creatives. The creative management module may manage a library of creative); not limited to Supply and Workflow Integration (SWI), creative management and data integration. In some embodiments, the SWI module processes and/or integrates supply data (from impression opportunity sellers such as ad exchanges). The SWI module may also process and/or integrate workflow data. These data can include third-party analytics data, trafficking data);paragraph 105 (An advertiser may specify the goals and/or constraints for any ad campaign via the interface. In addition, an advertiser may access any information provided by the ad exchanges and/or publishers via the interface. These information may be processed (e.g., reformatted, organized, analyzed, normalized, etc) and may be presented in a way that is more user friendly and/or easily understood; paragraph 106 (The interface may be any type or form of interface, such as a graphical user interface (GUI) and/or a command line interface. The interface may be a web interface or an application/software interface. Portions of the interface and interface content may be provided by a locally-executing application (e.g., software program) on a client machine 102);
As per claim 11, Buchalter teaches:
generate and render a creative asset library, comprising a graphical list of all ingested creative assets or a specified portion of the ingested creative assets (see at least paragraph 93 (The custom interfaces may normalize each set of sell side information into sets of data that can be processed by the bidding module and/or a brain engine of the DSP. The normalized sets of data may be stored in a data warehouse in some embodiments); paragraph 97 (The DSP integration layer may include a creative management module for storing, creating, updating, organizing, or otherwise managing creatives. The creative management module may manage a library of creative);
As per claim 13, Buchalter teaches:
generate and render a campaign library, comprising a graphical list of all ingested campaigns or a specified portion of the ingested campaigns (see at least paragraphs 97-116; paragraph 97 (The DSP integration layer may include a number of modules, including but not limited to Supply and Workflow Integration (SWI), creative management and data integration. In some embodiments, the SWI module processes and/or integrates supply data (from impression opportunity sellers such as ad exchanges). The SWI module may also process and/or integrate workflow data. These data can include third-party analytics data, trafficking data and non-real-time-bidding (non-RTB) data. These data may include system data, such as campaign management data. The SWI module may interface with the DSP data warehouse to retrieve data for processing and/or store data processed by the SWI module. The DSP integration layer may include a creative management module for storing, creating, updating, organizing, or otherwise managing creatives. The creative management module may manage a library of creatives);
As per claim 14, Buchalter teaches:
for each of the ingested campaigns rendered in the campaign library, render a launch doc affordance that, when selected, results in rendering a launch doc corresponding to the associated ingested campaign ( see at least paragraphs 109-115; paragraph 115 ( A user may include any type and form of configuration setting for a flight via the interface. For example, a user can specify the start and end dates/times for a campaign flight. A user can create multiple or additional flights via the interface. A user can extend a campaign or test different bid prices, daily spends and frequency caps against each other);
As per claim 15, Buchalter teaches:
cause rending of a creative assets drawer comprising at least a portion of creative assets of a creative assets library to be displayed with campaign placements of the ingested campaigns (see at least paragraph 97 (The DSP integration layer may include a creative management module for storing, creating, updating, organizing, or otherwise managing creatives. The creative management module may manage a library of creative); paragraph 121 (the DSP platform can handle one or more bidding transactions (or bids) within short periods of time (e.g., 30 ms). During a short period of time, the DSP platform can communicate or submit one or more bids for an advertiser to one or more impression opportunities for the placement of an advertisement; paragraph 147 (The bidder may operate responsive to a campaign set up via an interface that allows a requestor to setup campaign goals and constraints. Using a single interface to setup and request execution of a campaign, the bidder may execute the campaign to trade or match a plurality of advertisement placements to a plurality of impressions across a plurality of different exchanges);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6, 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Buchalter, US Pub No: 2021/0365958 A1 in view of Sheth et al, US Pub No: 2020/0387937 A1
Claim 5:
Buchalter discloses the limitations as shown above.
Buchalter does not specifically disclose, but Sheth however discloses:
trigger automatic quality control of the creative asset by providing an indication of the creative asset to a quality control system (see at least paragraph 24 (the creative agency can then use compliance results 126 to modify content 124 in real-time to increase compliance score 126A and resonance score 126B. The creative agency can also view individual compliance indicators 126C and 126D to determine what specific brand directives 108 are not currently included in content 124);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Buchalter’s method and system for determining competitive market values of an ad impression with the teaching of Sheth content compliance system with the motivation of providing an efficient system that avoid iterative process of reviewing and editing content as taught by Sheth [3] over that of Buchalter.
Claim 6:
Buchalter discloses the limitations as shown above.
Buchalter does not specifically disclose, but Sheth however discloses:
receive an indication that the automatic quality control of the creative asset passed; and in response to the indication that the automatic quality control of the creative asset passed, provide digital instructions comprising an indication of the creative asset to an ad decisioning service; or receive an indication that the automatic quality control of the creative asset failed; and in response to the indication that the automatic quality control of the creative asset failed, provide a failure indication via a GUI that provides a creative asset status; or both ( see at least paragraphs 24-26, paragraph 25 (the creative agency may repeatedly modify and resubmit content 124 to compliance system 100 until compliance results 126 reach an acceptable compliance score 126A and resonance level 126B. In one example, compliance engine 104 may be programmed with compliance threshold scores, such as 90% compliance with all brand directives 108 and a high resonance level with viewers. Compliance engine 104 may automatically display a message on user interface 122 when content 124 reaches the acceptable compliance thresholds); paragraph 26 (After reaching the acceptable compliance thresholds, the creative agency may submit content 124 to the brand for final approval or may publish content 124 on any identified media channels, such as posting content 124 on one or more social media websites. Thus, content compliance system 100 provides substantial time savings by reducing the number of iterations needed to produce content 124 that complies with brand directives 108);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Buchalter’s method and system for determining competitive market values of an ad impression with the teaching of Sheth content compliance system with the motivation of providing an efficient system that avoid iterative process of reviewing and editing content as taught by Sheth [3] over that of Buchalter.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Buchalter, US Pub No: 2021/0365958 A1 in view of Shivastava et al, US Pub No: 2021/0107141 A1.
Claim 8:
Buchalter discloses the limitations as shown above.
Buchalter further discloses:
trigger the transcoding of the creative asset and the trafficking of the transcoded creative asset (see at least paragraphs 97, 147-158; paragraph 97 ( the DSP integration layer may include a number of modules, including but not limited to Supply and Workflow Integration (SWI), creative management and data integration. In some embodiments, the SWI module processes and/or integrates supply data (from impression opportunity sellers such as ad exchanges). The SWI module may also process and/or integrate workflow data. These data can include third-party analytics data, trafficking data); paragraph 147 (The bidder may operate responsive to a campaign set up via an interface that allows a requestor to setup campaign goals and constraints. Using a single interface to setup and request execution of a campaign, the bidder may execute the campaign to trade or match a plurality of advertisement placements to a plurality of impressions across a plurality of different exchanges); paragraph 154 (the DSP normalizes the interfaces to each of the plurality of exchanges. As the DSP is aware of and understands the similarities and difference between each of the exchanges, the DSP can normalize these similarities and differences such that a single interface for establishing and executing a campaign across the exchanges. The normalization may occur in multiple ways, such as providing a data abstraction, data interface and/or data structures, such as a unified or normalized data interface, in the DSP that represents the common parameters across the exchanges. When the DSP interfaces with the exchange, the DSP may translate these normalized data structures to the parameters and variable names expected by the specific exchange);
Buchalter does not specifically disclose, but Shivastava however disclose:
triggering a robotic process automation (RPA) script (see at least the abstract (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);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Buchalter’s method and system for determining competitive market values of an ad impression with the teaching Shivastava’s RPA system with the motivation of providing and creating a framework that provide a straightforward way to deploy machine learning models via a conductor and to manage model versioning and create/retrieve/update/delete (CRUD as taught by Shivastava [19] over that of Buchalter.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Buchalter, US Pub No: 2021/0365958 A1 in view of Kang et al, US Pub No: 2016/0295299 A1.
Claim 12:
Buchalter discloses the limitations as shown above.
Buchalter does not specifically disclose, but kang however discloses:
wherein the ingested creative assets comprise both site served creative assets and video ad serving template (VAST) tag creative assets the ad server unpacks the payload of the ad and converts a format of the ad (see at least paragraph 35 (the ad server unpacks the payload of the ad and converts a format of the ad (if necessary) into a standard format (e.g., xml standard, digital video ad serving template (VAST)) for ads served by the ad server);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Buchalter’s method and system for determining competitive market values of an ad impression with the teaching of Kang’s method and system for providing advertising services to devices with dynamic ad creative localization with the motivation of targeting user in a timely manner and hence increasing marketing as taught by Kang over that of Buchalter.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Buchalter, US Pub No: 2021/0365958 A1 of Titus et al, US Pub No: 2017/0316465 A1.
Claim 16:
Buchalter discloses the limitations as shown above.
Buchalter further discloses:
receive a pixel addition indication in the creative assets drawer to a pixel area of a creative asset associated with the campaign placements; and in response to receiving the pixel addition indication, append the pixel to the creative asset associated with the campaign placements (see at least paragraph 118 (An advertiser may select or create any type or form of REM targeting segment pixel for a campaign. The advertiser may add one or more ads for the campaign. Each ad may be referenced by an ad tag. Each ad may be served from an ad server which may be specified via the interface. In some embodiments, some ads may be uploaded into the DPS via the interface. In certain embodiments, ads may be designed, customized and/or modified via the DPS interface. An advertiser can specify one or more ad sizes. In some embodiments, standard ad sizes may be specified or automatically configured. In one embodiment, the DPS may automatically resize and/or crop an ad to match an ad size offered by an impression opportunity);
Buchalter does not specifically disclose, but Titus however disclose:
receive a pixel addition indication comprising a drag and drop of a pixel (see at least paragraph 50 (The ad-location module 218 may receive a location of the screenshot manually via specified (e.g., by the client device 108) coordinates (e.g., inches, centimeters, pixels, etc.). In other embodiments, the location may be specified by a “drag-and-drop” user interface where the user 110 (via a client device 108) drags the ad content to a desired location on the screenshot. The ad-location module 218 then sends this location (i.e., coordinates) to the mock-up visualization module 222);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Buchalter’s method and system for determining competitive market values of an ad impression with the teaching of Titus’s ad context visualization and mock up tool with the motivation to 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 as taught by Titus over that of Buchalter.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Buchalter, US Pub No: 2021/0365958 A1 of Sheth et al, US Pub No: 2020/0387937 A1.
As per claim 17:
Buchalter discloses :
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 the 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 datastructure that is standardized for a plurality of creative asset sources providing creative asset information to the creative gateway, 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; and provide the indication of the creative asset, the indication of the creative asset comprising at least a portion of the creative asset information;
See at least paragraph 127 (A BI suite may provide a range of features such as interactive dashboards, proactive intelligence delivery and alerts, ad hoc queries and analysis, operational and volume reporting, online analytical processing (OLAP) analysis and presentation, dynamic predictive intelligence, disconnected analytics, unified metadata processing and ETL from any data source); paragraph 132 (receiving, via an interface of a demand side platform (DSP), at least one constraint and at least one goal for an online advertising campaign from a user (251). A bidding module of the demand side platform receives a first impression opportunity for bidding, the first impression opportunity accompanied by a first set of data delivered via a first advertising exchange (253). The bidding module receives a second impression opportunity for bidding, the second impression opportunity accompanied by a second set of data delivered via a second advertising exchange (255). The bidding module normalizes the first set of data and the second set of data (257). An engine of the demand side platform determines to bid on the first impression opportunity or the second impression opportunity based on the normalized first and second sets of data (259));
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;
See at least paragraphs 133-135; 154-158; paragraph 154 (the DSP normalizes the interfaces to each of the plurality of exchanges. As the DSP is aware of and understands the similarities and difference between each of the exchanges, the DSP can normalize these similarities and differences such that a single interface for establishing and executing a campaign across the exchanges. The normalization may occur in multiple ways, such as providing a data abstraction, data interface and/or data structures, such as a unified or normalized data interface, in the DSP that represents the common parameters across the exchanges. When the DSP interfaces with the exchange, the DSP may translate these normalized data structures to the parameters and variable names expected by the specific exchange. For those parameters not common across all the supported exchanges, the DSP may include logic, functions or operations to provide values for those parameters that are appropriate for the transaction when interacting with the exchange. The values for these parameters may be data tracked or managed by the DSP and stored in a DSP database, such as a user database or an exchange related database. Likewise, when receiving responses from the exchange, the DSP may translate the common exchange parameters into the unified or normalized data interface and non-common parameters are tracked and managed by the DSP, such as via a user or exchange database);
merge the creative asset information from the record of the creative asset with the campaign information from the record of the campaign to assign the creative asset information to a campaign placement described in the campaign information to generate a centralized record of the creative asset information assigned to the campaign placement (see at least paragraphs 95-98; paragraph 98 (The data integration module may process and/or integrate any type or form of data from first, second and/or third parties, such as an advertiser (e.g., ad agency and/or client), a publisher, an ad exchange, ad network, third-parties like BlueKai, etc. The data integration module may comprise, interoperate or interface with the one or more custom interfaces described above and in connection with FIG. 2G. The data integration module may operate with a ETL module to extract and normalize data from various source); paragraph 109-119; paragraph 109 (The advertiser can use the interface to perform any of: (i) create a new REM campaign for an existing advertiser, or select from a list of pre-existing campaigns (e.g., under the Campaign Settings section of the interface), (ii) configure start/end date, price, spend and frequency (e.g., under the Campaign Settings section of the interface), (iii) select a pixel to use in a REM target segment campaign (e.g., under the Pixels section of the interface), (iv) enter an ad tag creative to be used in the campaign (e.g., under the Creatives section of the interface), and (vii) launch the REM campaign. A creative, as referenced above, may represent online ads that are referenced via ad tags. These online ads may be used to remarket to users); paragraph 105 (The DSP may provide an interface for the advertiser to specify, define, compose, develop, test, refine, modify and/or design an ad campaign, for example, as depicted in FIG. 2G); paragraph 106 (The interface may be any type or form of interface, such as a graphical user interface (GUI) and/or a command line interface. The interface may be a web interface or an application/software interface. Portions of the interface and interface content may be provided by a locally-executing application (e.g., software program) on a client machine 102);
Buchalter does not specifically disclose, but Sheth however discloses:
a quality control system configured to receive an indication of a creative asset and, in response to receiving the indication of the creative asset, perform automated quality control on the creative asset; a creative gateway, configured to: receive creative asset information from a creative asset source (see at paragraphs 24-26, paragraph 25 (the creative agency may repeatedly modify and resubmit content 124 to compliance system 100 until compliance results 126 reach an acceptable compliance score 126A and resonance level 126B. In one example, compliance engine 104 may be programmed with compliance threshold scores, such as 90% compliance with all brand directives 108 and a high resonance level with viewers. Compliance engine 104 may automatically display a message on user interface 122 when content 124 reaches the acceptable compliance thresholds); paragraph 26 (After reaching the acceptable compliance thresholds, the creative agency may submit content 124 to the brand for final approval or may publish content 124 on any identified media channels, such as posting content 124 on one or more social media websites. Thus, content compliance system 100 provides substantial time savings by reducing the number of iterations needed to produce content 124 that complies with brand directives 108);
provide the indication of the creative asset to the quality control system, the indication of the creative asset comprising at least a portion of the creative asset information (see at least paragraph 24 (the creative agency can then use compliance results 126 to modify content 124 in real-time to increase compliance score 126A and resonance score 126B. The creative agency can also view individual compliance indicators 126C and 126D to determine what specific brand directives 108 are not currently included in content 124);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Buchalter’s method and system for determining competitive market values of an ad impression with the teaching of Sheth content compliance system with the motivation of providing an efficient system that avoid iterative process of reviewing and editing content as taught by Sheth [3] over that of Buchalter.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Buchalter, US Pub No: 2021/0365958 A1 in view of Sheth et al, US Pub No: 2020/0387937 in view of Titus et al, US Pub No: 2017/0316465 A1.
Claim 18:
The combination of Buchalter/Sheth discloses the limitations as shown above.
The combination of Buchalter/Sheth does not specifically disclose, but Titus however disclose:
store screenshots of the creative asset being served during an active campaign via a graphical user interface (GUI) (see at least paragraphs ( see at least paragraph 52 (the mock-up saving module 224 stores the screenshot, advertisement (e.g., image), and the superimposed location of the advertisement);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Buchalter/Sheth unified content interface compliance ML system with Titus’s ad context visualization and mock up tool with the motivation to enable 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 as taught by Titus over that of Buchalter/Sheth.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Buchalter, US Pub No: 2021/0365958 A1 in view of Sheth et al, US Pub No: 2020/0387937 in view of Bodin et al, US Pub No: 2020/0160377 A1.
Claim 21;
The combination of Buchalter/Sheth discloses the limitations as shown above.
Buchalter further discloses:
automatically map values of the creative asset information in the first source-specific data structure to the unified creative asset data structure based on historical submissions from the creative asset source; and automatically map values of the campaign information in the second source-specific data structure to the unified campaign data structure using pattern recognition based on historical submissions from the digital planning system ( see at least paragraph 176 (The brain engine of the DSP may generate and/or update the one or more bidding rules based on constraints and goals specified by the client or ad campaign. The brain engine of the DSP may generate and/or update the one or more bidding rules based on historical data, for example past successful bid prices and success rate; paragraph 228 (The engine may dynamically incorporate new candidate sets of inputs to generate an updated FMV prediction. The engine may generate an updated FMV prediction for an ad impression during the availability period of the ad impression. The engine may generate an updated FMV prediction for an ad impression as new data (e.g., a new or updated candidate set of inputs) becomes available. The engine may dynamically incorporate one or more new candidate sets of inputs to generate an updated set of predicted FMV bids for the ad impression);
the combination of Buchalter/Sheth does not specifically disclose, but Bodin however discloses:
using pattern recognition in order to determine specific recommendations and/ or actions ( see at least paragraph 188 ( the event processing and pattern recognition module 3200 implements equations (1)-(4) in order to determine specific recommendations and/or actions. For example, the event processing and pattern recognition module 3200 can determine where specific widgets or other assets are placed within forms. As another example, the event processing and pattern recognition module 3200 can make use of the recommendation module 3250 to realize, e.g., existing assets are similar to what the user is currently developing within the IDE by analyzing the user's own workspace); paragraph191,(the recommendation component 3270 determines a recommendation by utilizing the pattern recognition and code analysis provided in equations (1)-(4), in conjunction with the NLP and machine learning features of the NLP/machine learning 3290 component );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Buchalter/Sheth unified content interface compliance ML system with Bodin’s system and method implementing campaign products and service within intelligent development platform with the motivation of solving problems without requiring human assistance or intervention as taught by Bodin [88] over that of Buchalter/Sheth
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 graphical user interface for object discovery and mapping in open system
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 [M- R 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