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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 10/3/2025.
Claims 4 and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-22 are presented for examination.
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 and 11 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.
Claims 1, 11 on line 11 recites “the selected content item”. It is unclear if the selected content item on line 11 is the same “content item” of line 10. Correction is required.
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, 5-13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 21 recite a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., a process. Claims 11-13, 15-20 and 22 describe tangible system components, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Representative claim 1 recites:
Receiving, from a media provider, media information related to a plurality of media items for display; determining for each media item for the plurality of media items and based on the received media information, a set of attributes; receiving, from a content provider, a contrast indicator that relates to a feature attribute of the set of feature attributes; selecting, based on the set of feature attributes and the contrast indicator a content item; and displaying, the selected content item and a media item of the plurality of media items.
The above limitations as drafted that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or interactions) and fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 1 is an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One:
YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, returning to representative claim 1, the claim recites the additional elements of control circuitry. The specification as filed discloses generic computer components, at a high-level of generality such that amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They are no more than a tool to perform the “determining, “selecting” steps of selecting a content item. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1 is not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-10 and 21 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. There’re no additional elements that transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further abstract limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent system claim 11 is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as method 1. Claim 11 further recites a memory for storing media information, disclosed in specification as generic, computer component.
Dependent claims 12-13, 15-20 and 22 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. There’re no additional elements that transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further abstract limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tunguz-Zawaislak (2017/0116639) in view of Brueck (2011/0022471).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Tunguz-Zawaislak teaches methods and systems for:
A memory configured to store media information and content information (data repository 118);
Receiving, from a media provider, media information related to a plurality of media items (i.e. The content module 112 provides the content of a web page 114 to be displayed. The content of the web page 114 can contain a forum thread, a conversation, a discussion, a news article, or some other content, to name just a few examples) (see Figure 1 and paragraph 019) for display at a user device (client device 104 on Figure 1);
Determining, using control circuitry, for each media item for the plurality of media items and based on the received media information, a set of attributes (i.e. The page generating module 116 creates the web page 114 containing the content provided by the content module 112 )(see Figure 1 paragraph 0019);
receiving, from a content provider, a contrast indicator that relates to a feature attribute of the set of feature attributes (i.e. the ad server 106 are configured to enable control of the appearance of the advertisements by, for example, authors or publishers of the web pages, advertisers who own the ads, or users who view the ads. The appearances of the web pages maybe controlled by using, for example, skin files)(see Figure 1 and paragraph 0018);
selecting, using control circuitry, based on the set of feature attributes and the contrast indicator a content item and displaying, the selected content item and a media item of the plurality of media items (i.e. When advertisements are presented on web pages, one or more parties may desire to control the appearance of both the advertisements and the web page in general. The advertiser or other parties may desire to change the overall appearance of the web page in connection with advertisements displayed on it. The parties who may desire to control the appearance of web pages include the author or publisher of the web page, the advertiser, and the user who is ultimately viewing the web page. The author or publisher may want to assure that advertisements placed on his web page are consistent in appearance with the content and appearance of the page—this may include selecting a font face, text size and color, and background images and colors that match or complement those of the web page)(see Figure 1 and paragraphs 0023-0024).
With respect to the newly amended feature of displaying the content item between a first and a second media item in a successive order. Brueck teaches on paragraph 0079 “ advertisements are inserted into an advertisement break in a live Internet video event, the inserted advertisements (effective advertisement break), as played by the media player 200…..After the advertisement break, the media player returns to play the live multimedia content”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in the web page content of Tunguz-Zawislak the teachings of Brueck for the ads to displayed between a first and a second media item in a successive order, because such a modification would for some, specially in a mundane web content and the like can enhance overall enjoyment by providing a welcome advertisement break interruption.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Tunguz-Zawaislak further teaches wherein the feature attribute of the set of feature attributes relates to a modality selected from the group consisting of color, context, format, sentiment, tone and composition (see paragraph 0025 for a set of appearance criteria for content included in a web page, such as fonts, colors, and background images, and any related files such as font files and image files needed to carry out the formatting).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Tunguz-Zawaislak further teaches wherein a feature attribute of the set of feature attributes relates to a color profile of the plurality of media items (content appearance of the page this may include selecting a font face, text size and color, and background images and colors that match or complement those of the web page)(see paragraph 0024); wherein the received contrast indicator is associated with high/low contrast; and wherein the selected content item comprises a content color profile that is distinct from the color profile of the plurality of media items (i.e. The advertiser may want to assure that the appearance of the advertisement is consistent with their brand identity, for example, Coca-Cola may want an advertisement for Coke® to have white text on a red background using the same font as is used on their cans and bottles. The advertiser may want to extend their brand identity to other areas of the web page. Continuing the Coca-Cola example, Coca-Cola may want to change the background of the entire web page to red. A user may want to configure ads to use a combination of font size and color other than the default, for example, larger fonts in a high-contrast color scheme to accommodate limited vision or can use the same default for low contrast ads)(see paragraph 0024). In addition, paragraph 0037 teaches “For example, a retail store might provide a skin file 306a that skins an entire web page, and specify that that skin file 306a should be used to format ads delivered to web sites that have existing styles that conflict with the advertiser's brand identity”
With respect to claims 6-7 and 16-17, Tunguz-Zawaislak further teaches retrieving, from a database, user preferences; wherein selecting the content item is further based on the user preferences; wherein the user preferences include historical user information associated with the user device (see Figure 3 and paragraph 0032 for A user might keep the skin file 306 on her own computer, or might also upload it to a third-party server, for example, so that it can be applied to websites rendered on any computer that users uses, assuming the user logs in or in some other way identifies herself so that such preferences can be applied).
Claims 5 and 15, further recite, determining, for each feature attribute of the set of feature attributes, a predominance score; and ranking the plurality of media items based on the determined predominance score. Tunguz-Zawaislak teaches on paragraph 0024, content appearance of the page this may include selecting a font face, text size and color, and background images and colors that match or complement those of the web page. Tunguz-Zawaislak is silent as to a predominance score for ranking the attributes. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to calculate a predominance score to reflect the extent to which one factor or characteristic is more significant or prevalent than others. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included for ranking the attributes of Tunguz-Zawaislak based on a predominance score because such a modification would better pick the attributes based on what attributes are more prevalent.
Claims 8 and 18 further recite, determining, for each feature attribute of the set of feature attributes, a feature attribute score; and ranking each feature attributes according to the determined feature attribute score. Tunguz-Zawaislak teaches on paragraph 0024, content appearance of the page this may include selecting a font face, text size and color, and background images and colors that match or complement those of the web page. Tunguz-Zawaislak is silent as to a score for ranking the attributes. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to calculate a score to provide a more objective and consistent way to assess performance compared to subjective opinions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included for ranking the attributes of Tunguz-Zawaislak based on a score because such a modification would better help decision making and performance evaluation.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 further recite receiving, from the content provider, a second contrast indicator that relates to a second feature attribute of the set of feature attributes; and wherein selecting the content item is further based on the second contrast indicator. Since, Tunguz-Zawaislak teaches receiving, from the content provider, a contrast indicator that relates to a second feature attribute of the set of feature attributes; and wherein selecting the content item is further based on the contrast indicator (see paragraph 0024 for the content provider to configure ads to use a combination of font size and color other than the default, for example, larger fonts in a high-contrast color scheme to accommodate limited vision), it would have been obvious to have received a second contrast indicator for a second feature attribute in order to allow to make changes to various or many different ads.
With respect to claims 21-22, the combination of Tunguz-Zawaislak and Brueck teach advertisements are inserted into an advertisement break in a live Internet video event, the inserted advertisements (effective advertisement break), as played by the media player 200…..After the advertisement break, the media player returns to play the live multimedia content . The combination of Tunguz-Zawaislak and Brueck do not teach: the successive order characterized by first displaying the first media item, followed by displaying the second media item followed by displaying the selected content item. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to display ads/content item after media content is old and well known such after a visited website, after viewing a product and the like in order to better target the ads based on the user’s viewed content. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included successive order characterized by first displaying the first media item, followed by displaying the second media item followed by displaying the selected content item, in order to better target the ads.
References of record but not applied in the current rejection:
KR 102548359 B1 teaches the advertiser may want to modify the content or change the detailed layout/color after reviewing the draft advertisement prepared based on the point information prepared by the advertiser.
D. Dwihananto, Teng-Sheng Moh, titled “Effectively Finding the Right Keyword for the Target Audience” teaches choosing keywords advertising that best describes their main pages, this method is called content-targeted advertising.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims do not pertain to an abstract idea and that ”the claims provide a technological solution to a technological problem, to provide improved techniques for selecting and providing a content item with an appropriate level of contrast relative to displayed media items, when selecting content item to display among the displayed media items”. The Examiner wants to point out that the claims do not provide a technological solution to a technological problem but instead pertain to make advertisements stand out by ensuring high or low contrast between images when selecting and inserting advertisements among other media, by for example determining a set of feature attribute for each media item, selecting a content item based on the feature attributes and the contrast indicator and displaying the content item among the first and second media items in successive order, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers selecting content item/advertising, marketing to display among the displayed media items and falls within “Certain Methods of Human Activity” under 2A, prong one. Other than reciting the additional elements of control circuitry, memory (claim 11) at a higher level of generality such that they are no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. They are no more than a tool to perform the “determining ” and “selecting” steps and are considered as “apply it”, as the claim invokes the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea under 2A, prong two.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 3 that Tunguz-Zawislak doesn’t teach the selected content item comprises a content profile that is distinct from the color profile of the plurality of media items. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant because Tunguz-Zawaislak further teaches on paragraph 0037 “For example, a retail store might provide a skin file 306a that skins an entire web page, and specify that that skin file 306a should be used to format ads delivered to web sites that have existing styles that conflict with the advertiser's brand identity.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, 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 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621