DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 15, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 18, 2026, cancelled claims 4-8, 10, and 17. Claims 1-2, 9, and 11-16 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-2, 9, and 11-16.
Claim Interpretation
The following terms have been interpreted in light of the applicant’s specification:
a second reception unit: a software component for receiving brand information (Based on Figure 5 and paragraphs 79, 87-91, 93 and 113).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claims 1, 11, and 12 recite obtaining a target impression of an image based on setting set by a user; and receiving an input of an image from a user. The second claimed “a user” does not have proper antecedent basis to the first claimed “a user”. It is impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether the second claimed “a user” is intended to be a new user different from the first or whether the claimed “a user” is intended to have antecedent basis to the first claimed “a user”. Likewise, the second claims “a image” does not have proper antecedent basis to the first claimed “an image”. It is impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether the second claimed “a image” is intended to be a new image different from the first image or whether the claimed “a image” is intended to have antecedent basis to the first claimed “an image”
Next, independent claims 1, 11, and 12 recite: receiving settings regarding a plurality of output sizes from the user. It is impossible for one or ordinary skill to determine whether the claimed “the user” is intended to have antecedent basis to the first claimed “a user”, to the second claimed “a user”, or whether all of the recitations of “user” are intended to be a single user. As such, it is clear that independent claims 1, 11, and 12 are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventors, regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 13-16 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
For the purpose of prosecuting the claims the examiner is going to interpret these limitations as if they all refer to the same single user.
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 1-2, 9, and 11-16 are directed to an apparatus, a method and a computer program product 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 1-2, 9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, 11, and 12 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
obtaining a target impression of an image based on setting set by a user;
receiving an input of a image from the user;
receiving settings regarding a plurality of output sies from the user, wherein the plurality of output sizes include a first size and a second size different from the first size;
generating a first image of the first size, based on the input image and a first skeleton (e.g., template) identified based on the obtained target impression;
generating a second image of the second size, based on the input image and a second skeleton (e.g., template) identified based on the obtained target impression;
calculating a similarity between the first image and the second image based on at least one of a logo, coloration, a font, and a pattern included in the first image and the second image;
calculating a first impression distance between the target impression and first image;
calculating a second impression distance between the target impression and the second image;
calculating a sum of the similarity, the first impression distance, and the second impression distance;
comparing the sum to a threshold value; and
in a case where the sum is less than the threshold value,
causing a display/displaying the first image and the second image.
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 a computer with a processor, a memory, and a display executing software which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components which is merely being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea.
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)):
obtaining a target impression of an image based on setting set by a user (receiving data);
receiving an input of a image from the user (receiving data);
receiving settings regarding a plurality of output sies from the user, wherein the plurality of output sizes include a first size and a second size different from the first size (receiving data); and
causing a display/displaying the first image and the second image in a case where the sum is less than the threshold value (transmitting data for display and/or displaying data).
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.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer with a processor, a memory, and a display executing software to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more 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 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 40-41, 52-54, 79, 95, 139, 193, 213 and 215; as well as figures 1-2, 5-6, 12 and 17 of the applicant’s specification, as well as Usability.gov, User Interface Elements, July 8, 2013, https://web.archive.org/web/20130708215553/http://www.usability.gov:80/how-to-and-tools/methods/user-interface-elements.html, pages 1-6 which discloses that slider bars are generic user interface elements that were well-understood, routine, and conventional by at least 2013); 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)):
obtaining a target impression of an image based on setting set by a user (receiving data);
receiving an input of a image from the user (receiving data);
receiving settings regarding a plurality of output sies from the user, wherein the plurality of output sizes include a first size and a second size different from the first size (receiving data); and
causing a display/displaying the first image and the second image in a case where the sum is less than the threshold value (transmitting data for display and/or displaying data).
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).
The dependent claims 2, 9 and 13-16 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by adding an additional step of receiving designation of a design element which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 2); adding the additional steps of receiving a reflection degree and further limiting the calculating of the sum (Claim 9); adding an additional step of receiving a print instruction which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 13); further limiting the target impression and some type of estimated impression which are considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 14), further limiting setting of the target impression which adding an indication of a slider bar on a graphical user interface used by the user, wherein the graphical user interface is outside the scope of the applicant’s invention which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 15); adds an additional step of setting a coloration pattern, and further limiting the generating of the first image which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 16), and therefore 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 1-2, 9, and 11-16 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 9, and 11-16 contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 112b rejections and the 35 USC 101 rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner has found prior art (see Marthon et. al.: 10,957,086; Vergnaud et al.: 2019/0370282; and Tao: 2019/0325626) which discloses an information processing apparatus, a control method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a control method, comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the information processing apparatus to:
obtaining a target impression of an image based on setting set by a user;
receiving an input of a image from the user;
receiving settings regarding a plurality of output sizes from the user, wherein the plurality of output sizes include a first size and a second size different from the first size;
generating a first image of the first size, based on the input image and a first skeleton identified based on the obtained target impression;
generating a second image of the second size, based on the input image and a second skeleton identified based on the obtained target impression;
calculating a similarity between the first image and the second image based on at least one of a logo, coloration, a font, and a pattern included in the first image and the second image;
calculating a first impression distance between the target impression and first image;
calculating a second impression distance between the target impression and the second image; and
cause a display of the information processing apparatus to display the first image and the second image based on in a case where the similarity satisfies a similarity threshold value, the first impression distance satisfies an impression threshold value, and the second impression distance satisfies the impression threshold value.
However, in the prior art of Marthon, Vergnaud, and Tao displaying of the first image and the second image based on the similarity satisfying a similarity threshold value, the first impression distance satisfying an impression threshold value, and the second impression distance satisfying the impression threshold value. Thus, the prior art of Marthon, Vergnaud, and Tao do not disclose that the displaying of the first and the second image is based on a sum of the similarity, the first impression distance, and the second impression distance is less than a threshold value.
The examiner has been unable to find prior art, which would be obvious to combine with Marthon, Vergnaud, and Tao, that teaches causing a display of the information processing apparatus to display the first image and the second image based on in a case where a sum of the similarity, the first impression distance, and the second impression distance is less than a threshold value. As such, claims 1-2, 9, and 11-16 contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 112b rejections and the 35 USC 101 rejections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that “Claims only recite an abstract idea if the specifically set forth a mathematical concept, a method or organizing human activity, or a mental process”. This assertion is incorrect. As made clear in MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), “In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims “set forth” an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.””. Thus, claims recite an abstract idea if one or more limitations in a claim specifically “set forth” or “describe” a mathematical concept, a method or organizing human activity, or a mental process”.
The applicant argues with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the claims do not recite Mathematical Concepts because the claims do not recite mathematical concepts since they include no formulas, calculations, or mathematical relationships. This argument is moot as the examiner has not indicated that the claims recited a Mathematical Concept. Instead, the examiner has indicated that the claims recite an abstract idea that 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. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 because they do not recite a mental process the claims recite because none of the limitations of the claims can be performed in the human mind. This argument is moot as the examiner has not indicated that the claims recited a Mental Process. Instead, the examiner has indicated that the claims recite “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. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the claims do not recite methods of organizing human activity because there is none of the limitations of the claim are commercial, social, legal, or behavioral interactions. and as such do not recite a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. The examiner disagrees. First, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims does not recite an abstract idea that 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 as identified by the examiner. Second, the claims clearly recite at least an advertising activity. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines advertising as “the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements”. Thus, the claims need only be generating images intended to call to the attention of the public to said images in order to be considered performing an advertising activity. The claims clearly perform the steps of setting a target impression of an image, generate images based on the target impression, and cause a display of the images. As made clear in at least paragraph 6 of the applicant’s specification, “The present disclosure is directed to appropriately generating a design representing an impression of a brand that is uniform and intended by the user, for a plurality of promotional material. Thus, the claims are clearly reciting an advertising activity. Attempting to broaden the claims to remove the term “promotional materials” and instead recite “images”, merely means that the claimed “images” is to interpreted broadly enough to encompass “promotional material”. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claims are integrated into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 because the 2025 guidance emphasizes analyzing how all limitation interact, how components work together, and whether the combination provides a specific technological improvement which the claim clearly do. The examiner disagrees. First, it appears the applicant is misconstruing both the 2025 Guidance and MPEP 2106 with regards to requirements under Step 2a, Prong 2 and Step 2b. According the MPEP 2106 and the 2025 Guidance, the examiner is to considered how the “additional elements”, both individually and as a whole, interact, the manner in which the additional elements work together, and whether the combination of “additional elements” provide a specific technological improvement. “Additional elements” are defined as those limitation or parts thereof that are outside of the abstract idea itself. In the instant case, the only “additional elements” in the claims are a computer with one or more processors, one or more memories and a display executing software (e.g., a second reception unit). Whether considered individually or as a whole amount to no more than a general-purpose computer upon which the abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application Under Step 2a, Prong 2. Second, the applicant asserts that the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem. According to MPEP 2106, an improvement rooted solely in the abstract idea itself cannot be considered an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”). Improvements of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (see 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.). Third, the applicant argues that the claims expressly recite a particular architecture and a particular way of achieving a result and, as such, are not merely applying the abstract idea. However, what the applicant asserts is an architecture is merely a series of steps for performing the abstract idea and the particular way of achieving a result is to execute the abstract idea merely using a general-purpose computer as tool. As such, it is clear that any purported improvement obtained by practicing the claims is an improvement rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claims recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2b because the limitations that are part of the abstract idea itself are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The examiner strongly disagrees. Under Step 2b, it is the “additional elements” of a claim which must be considered “significantly more” than the abstract idea. “Additional elements” are defined as those limitation or parts thereof that are outside of the abstract idea itself. As such, it is immaterial under Step 2b, whether the limitations of the abstract idea are well-understood, routine or conventional. Under Step 2b, the examiner is to considered whether the “additional elements” of the claim are well-understood, routine or conventional. In the instant case the “additional elements” of the claim are merely a general-purpose computer with generic computer components which is insufficient to be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing, and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the August 4, 2025, Memorandum instructs examiners that if it is a close call, a 101 rejection should not be made unless it is more likely than not that the claim is ineligible. The examiner notes that in the instant case, the claims clearly recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 and merely require applying said abstract idea using a general-purpose computer under Step 2a, Prong 2 and Step 2b. As such, the instant claims are not a close call. The claims of the instant invention are clearly ineligible as describe in the responses to arguments above. As made clear in MPEP 2106, merely applying an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer with generic computer component is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and insufficient to be considered “significantly more” under Step 2b. As such, nothing in the August 5, 2025, memorandum could lead one to believe such claims are patent eligible and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 USC 102 rejections and 35 USC 103 rejections are moot as the claim amendment has overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sheth et al. (PGPUB 2020/0387937) which discloses a content compliance system that receives selected specific brand criteria displayed on a user interface; compares the selected brand criteria with content generated; and 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; receives modifications to the creative content; and provides a real-time updated compliance score.
Montero (PGPUB: 2017/0316449) which discloses generating a promotion by: Receiving set of possible offers, each including a set of variables, with each variable having a set of possible values. These form a combination of variable values for each offer. A heuristic is applied to all possible offers to reduce the number of offers being considered. The combination of variable values for these reduced number offers is converted into a vector value, which is then scored, ranked and the top ranked offers are selected for inclusion in a promotional campaign. The remaining offers are then analyzed to select additional offers to include into the promotional campaign which maximizing a determinant for the selected offers using their vectors. All selected offers are administered in a promotional test campaign across many consumer segments. Feedback from the campaign may be collected to generate a “general” offer.
Stohlman (PGPUB: 2020/0410552) which discloses an advertisement generation and distribution system that uses a variety of dynamic templates to produce a variety of textual and visual differences across the advertisements and/or advertisement campaigns; creates many different advertisements and/or advertisement campaigns for the same products, each with different text and imagery and creates new templates (configurations for arranging the text and visual content) easily and add these templates to the system itself. The system also utilizes a brand compliance feature to ensure that the generated advertisements are compliant with branding rules and licensing requirements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Spar Ilana 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
