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 communication filed on 7/28/2026.
Claims 90-102 are presented for examination.
Double Patent rejections have been removed in lieu of claims amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding struc
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: module configured to in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 90 and 98 recite the functions coupled to the word, -module configure to- with no structure or material recited to perform the entire function. Therefore, the claim is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and the claim has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification pertaining to claims 90 and 98 describe a processor/hardware to perform the functions in the claims. Specifically, on paragraph 0037 as published discloses various modules that are communicatively coupled to memory 202 and processor 204. that operate to perform one or more operations or functions. Since, the specification corresponding material is sufficient to perform all the functions recited in the 112, sixth claim limitation.
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 90-102 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 90-102 recites tangible system components, thus falling the 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).
Claims 90 and 98 recite:
Ad creation to receive from an advertiser, a definition of at least one ad-creative to target each of a plurality of audience segments and to dynamically control a plurality of ad-creatives to show and sequence for each of the audience segments, the ad creation;
A messaging; an ad-swap generation and content delivery to generate swap instructions and content delivery of the ad-creatives within an ad spot, wherein the ad-swap generation and content delivery generates a list of appropriate ad-creatives and a household pair for the ad spot and relays an instruction to swap a default ad-creative with an appropriate replacement ad-creative.
The limitations of targeting a plurality of audience segments with ads, covers advertising, marketing, behaviors and falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 90 recites the additional elements of memory, processor. The specification as filed discloses generic recitation of these computer elements. These additional elements are considered as “apply it” as the claim invokes the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (similar to Apple, Inc. v Ameranth and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v Capital One Bank (USA).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of memory, processor, alone or in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Therefore, there are no additional elements that amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Dependent claims 91-97 and 99-102 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 90-102 are allowable over prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record Lu (2009/0150224) teaches generation of lists of time slots and possible ad inserts, and estimates, and un-deliverable creatives to be swapped. Lu also discloses combining historical data with a bid (box 412) where an auction simulator identifies a slot 414 and determines a winning bid level 416. Lu fails to teach any swap-instruction generation; choosing an ad-spot to upgrade, or any relay of a swap instruction to a device.
Other references of record
Article titled “ Marketing Spot Optimization” teaches The measurement engine 210 may be used to evaluate actual spot impressions relative to predicted impressions. The measurement engine 210 also may receive inputs from analytics services such as those that record and analyze viewing information based on panels of viewers, or other selected audience segments. The audience valuation and optimizer engine 220 may estimate the value of upcoming spot inventory, such as for a day, or a week. The valuation may be based on historical data. The audience forecasting engine 230 estimates the potential audience composition (e.g., demographics) for one spot or a group of spots (e.g., by day part). The yield optimization engine 240 provides an estimate of return on investment for spots allocated to self-marketing or to ad sales.
In operation, the optimization program 200 may start with a given set of spot inventory, such as an entire day's worth of upcoming spots, or an entire week's worth of upcoming spots, and then estimate the value of each spot if used for self-marketing purposes. This valuation could be in units such as "cost per call" or "cost per attributed visit." The valuation may be based on historical values. The value may be expressed in the form of a response rate such as 0.2% of impressions will generate a response, also may be expressed by date, time, network, and ad creative.
Feng et al. (WO 2009/042304 hereinafter Feng) teaches the addressable spot manager 330 optimizes addressable ad spots that can be handled based on network bandwidth capability, mobile terminal storage availability, and broadcast channels. Based on the above criteria, it defines the number of ad spots that can be used effectively for ad insertion and delivers customer specific ad files to be inserted at each ad-spot.
Response to Arguments
The 101 rejections have been maintained. The claims pertain to: targeting a plurality of audience segments with ads, which cover advertising, marketing and sales activities and fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” . The instructions to swap a default ad-creative with an appropriate replacement ad creative to target a different demographic, further define the abstract idea.
The additional elements of memory, processor/module are considered as “apply it” as the claim invokes the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is 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 3622
Prosecution Insights