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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-40 are new.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,397. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to broaden the claims of the patent by changing or removing limitations of the patent to yield the new instant claims.
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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 21-27, 29-36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (US 2017/0316464), hereinafter referred to as Burke, in view of Kirillov (US 2015/0234542), hereinafter referred to as Kirillov.
8. Regarding claim 21, Burke discloses a computing system, comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: receiving a request pertaining to a content space of a video stream comprising first content, wherein the content space enables insertion of a second content into the video stream (paragraph 28 wherein the inventory source sends a request for an advertisement to an advertisement source such as an advertisement server);
accessing context information indicative of subject matter of the first content of the video stream (paragraphs 14-16 wherein attributes of content being delivered by the inventory source at the current time or the time of one or more future placement opportunities such as: in the case of a television program, any one or more of the name, network, channel, genre, length, and air time of the program);
determining filtering criteria indicative of permissions for prospective content to be inserted into the video stream responsive to the request (paragraph 28 wherein the inventory source may communicate some or all of the attribute data to the advertisement source (e.g., within the request) to assist in selecting and/or formatting an advertisement for delivery to the inventory source);
generating context data by applying the filtering criteria to the context information, wherein the context data comprises data to be provided to one or more bidders during a content auction, wherein the context data adheres to the filtering criteria (paragraph 28 wherein the inventory source may communicate some or all of the attribute data to the advertisement source (e.g., within the request) to assist in selecting and/or formatting an advertisement for delivery to the inventory source);
and providing the context data to at least one bidder at a content auction for prospective content to be inserted into the video stream (paragraphs 28 and 34-42 wherein the attribute data may be stored in a manner which makes the attribute data available to the bidder, and wherein the pricing engine may provide a bid request to one or more bidder).
However, Burke is silent in regards to disclosing causing insertion of the second content into the content space of the video stream based upon the result of the content auction in which the at least one bidder is a participant.
Kirillov discloses causing insertion of the second content into the content space of the video stream based upon the result of the content auction in which the at least one bidder is a participant (paragraph 77 wherein the management entity holds an auction to insert a creative in the content slot on an impression by impression basis. Via the auction, the management entity selects a creative of the highest bidder (for instance, a third-party content provider) and inserts the creative in the content slot for the given impression). Kirillov provides motivation to combine the references wherein a processor of a data processing system receives, responsive to an action to an object included within an information resource of a content publisher, a request to receive information for inserting a creative within one or more third-party content slots available on the information resource (paragraph 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Burke with the content insertion from performed auction of Kirillov (paragraph 16).
9. Regarding claim 22, Burke discloses the computing system of claim 21, wherein the content space is an ad pod (paragraphs 7-8 wherein system may dynamically adjust such pricing data for an advertisement placement opportunity based on the position of the placement on a screen).
10. Regarding claim 23, Burke discloses the computing system of claim 21, wherein determining the filtering criteria comprises analyzing a content agreement (paragraphs 28-29 wherein the inventory source may communicate some or all of the attribute data to the advertisement source (e.g., within the request) to assist in selecting and/or formatting an advertisement for delivery to the inventory source).
11. Regarding claim 24, Burke discloses the computing system of claim 21, wherein analyzing the content agreement comprises providing the content agreement to a computer implemented model, wherein the computer implemented model generates a response comprising at least one criteria of the filtering criteria (paragraph 9 wherein data processing system is configured to then transform the determined feature data of the content publishers and third-party content providers and the conversion rates of the plurality of content publisher-provider pairs into a model useful for predicting a conversion rate of a given content publisher-provider pair different from the identified plurality of content publisher-provider pairs).
12. Regarding claim 25, Kirillov discloses the computing system of claim 21, wherein the content auction is part of a real- time bidding advertising exchange, and wherein the auction is a prebid auction (paragraph 77 wherein via the auction, the management entity selects a creative of the highest bidder (for instance, a third-party content provider) and inserts the creative in the content slot for the given impression).
13. Regarding claim 26, Kirillov discloses the computing system of claim 21, wherein the content auction comprises receiving bid responses that enable a determination of an ad play list for the content space of the video stream (paragraph 86 wherein the data processing system can generate a list of candidate content publishers to a third-party content provider seeking information resources on which to serve creatives).
14. Regarding claim 27, Burke discloses the computing system of claim 21, wherein the context data provided to the at least one bidder enables applying a targeting criterion or an exclusion criterion included in a line item, wherein the accessing the context information further comprises periodically retrieving the context information from a context server and storing the context information (paragraph 28 wherein the attribute data may be stored in a manner which makes the attribute data available to the bidder, such as on a server that is accessible to the bidder).
15. Regarding claim 29, Burke discloses a method, comprising: receiving one or more requests pertaining to a content space of a video stream comprising first content, wherein the content space enables insertion of a second content into the video stream (paragraph 28 wherein the inventory source sends a request for an advertisement to an advertisement source such as an advertisement server);
accessing context information indicative of subject matter of the first content of the video stream (paragraphs 14-16 wherein attributes of content being delivered by the inventory source at the current time or the time of one or more future placement opportunities such as: in the case of a television program, any one or more of the name, network, channel, genre, length, and air time of the program);
determining filtering criteria indicative of permissions for prospective content to be inserted into the video stream responsive to the request (paragraph 28 wherein the inventory source may communicate some or all of the attribute data to the advertisement source (e.g., within the request) to assist in selecting and/or formatting an advertisement for delivery to the inventory source);
generating context data by applying the filtering criteria to the context information, wherein the context data comprises data to be provided to one or more bidders during a content auction, wherein the context data adheres to the filtering criteria (paragraph 28 wherein the inventory source may communicate some or all of the attribute data to the advertisement source (e.g., within the request) to assist in selecting and/or formatting an advertisement for delivery to the inventory source);
and providing the context data to at least one bidder at a content auction for prospective content to be inserted into the video stream (paragraphs 28 and 34-42 wherein the attribute data may be stored in a manner which makes the attribute data available to the bidder, and wherein the pricing engine may provide a bid request to one or more bidder).
However, Burke is silent in regards to disclosing causing insertion of the second content into the content space of the video stream based upon the result of the content auction in which the at least one bidder is a participant.
Kirillov discloses causing insertion of the second content into the content space of the video stream based upon the result of the content auction in which the at least one bidder is a participant (paragraph 77 wherein the management entity holds an auction to insert a creative in the content slot on an impression by impression basis. Via the auction, the management entity selects a creative of the highest bidder (for instance, a third-party content provider) and inserts the creative in the content slot for the given impression). Kirillov provides motivation to combine the references wherein a processor of a data processing system receives, responsive to an action to an object included within an information resource of a content publisher, a request to receive information for inserting a creative within one or more third-party content slots available on the information resource (paragraph 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Burke with the content insertion from performed auction of Kirillov (paragraph 16).
16. Regarding claim 30, Burke discloses the method of claim 29, wherein the content space is an ad pod (paragraphs 7-8 wherein system may dynamically adjust such pricing data for an advertisement placement opportunity based on the position of the placement on a screen).
17. Regarding claim 31, Burke discloses the method of claim 29, wherein the one or more requests are received from the one or more bidders (paragraph 28 wherein the inventory source sends a request for an advertisement to an advertisement source such as an advertisement server).
18. Regarding claim 32, Burke discloses the method of claim 29, wherein determining the filtering criteria comprises analyzing a content agreement (paragraph 28 wherein the inventory source may communicate some or all of the attribute data to the advertisement source (e.g., within the request) to assist in selecting and/or formatting an advertisement for delivery to the inventory source).
19. Regarding claim 33, Burke discloses the method of claim 29, wherein analyzing the content agreement comprises providing the content agreement to a computer implemented model, wherein the computer implemented model generates a response comprising at least one criteria of the filtering criteria (paragraph 9 wherein data processing system is configured to then transform the determined feature data of the content publishers and third-party content providers and the conversion rates of the plurality of content publisher-provider pairs into a model useful for predicting a conversion rate of a given content publisher-provider pair different from the identified plurality of content publisher-provider pairs).
20. Regarding claim 34, Kirillov discloses the computing system of claim 21, wherein the content auction is part of a real- time bidding advertising exchange, and wherein the auction is a prebid auction (paragraph 77 wherein via the auction, the management entity selects a creative of the highest bidder (for instance, a third-party content provider) and inserts the creative in the content slot for the given impression).
21. Regarding claim 35, Kirillov discloses the method of claim 29, wherein the content auction comprises receiving bid responses that enable a determination of an ad play list for the content space of the video stream (paragraph 86 wherein the data processing system can generate a list of candidate content publishers to a third-party content provider seeking information resources on which to serve creatives).
22. Regarding claim 36, Burke discloses the method of claim 29, wherein the context data provided to the at least one bidder enables applying a targeting criterion or an exclusion criterion included in a line item, wherein the accessing the context information further comprises periodically retrieving the context information from a context server and storing the context information (paragraph 28 wherein the attribute data may be stored in a manner which makes the attribute data available to the bidder, such as on a server that is accessible to the bidder).
23. Regarding claim 40, Burke discloses a non-transitory, machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: receiving one or more requests pertaining to a content space of a video stream comprising first content, wherein the content space enables insertion of a second content into the video stream (paragraph 28 wherein the inventory source sends a request for an advertisement to an advertisement source such as an advertisement server);
accessing context information indicative of subject matter of the first content of the video stream (paragraphs 14-16 wherein attributes of content being delivered by the inventory source at the current time or the time of one or more future placement opportunities such as: in the case of a television program, any one or more of the name, network, channel, genre, length, and air time of the program);
determining filtering criteria indicative of permissions for prospective content to be inserted into the video stream responsive to the request (paragraph 28 wherein the inventory source may communicate some or all of the attribute data to the advertisement source (e.g., within the request) to assist in selecting and/or formatting an advertisement for delivery to the inventory source);
generating context data by applying the filtering criteria to the context information, wherein the context data comprises data to be provided to one or more bidders during a content auction, wherein the context data adheres to the filtering criteria (paragraph 28 wherein the inventory source may communicate some or all of the attribute data to the advertisement source (e.g., within the request) to assist in selecting and/or formatting an advertisement for delivery to the inventory source);
and providing the context data to at least one bidder at a content auction for prospective content to be inserted into the video stream (paragraphs 28 and 34-42 wherein the attribute data may be stored in a manner which makes the attribute data available to the bidder, and wherein the pricing engine may provide a bid request to one or more bidder).
However, Burke is silent in regards to disclosing causing insertion of the second content into the content space of the video stream based upon the result of the content auction in which the at least one bidder is a participant.
Kirillov discloses causing insertion of the second content into the content space of the video stream based upon the result of the content auction in which the at least one bidder is a participant (paragraph 77 wherein the management entity holds an auction to insert a creative in the content slot on an impression by impression basis. Via the auction, the management entity selects a creative of the highest bidder (for instance, a third-party content provider) and inserts the creative in the content slot for the given impression). Kirillov provides motivation to combine the references wherein a processor of a data processing system receives, responsive to an action to an object included within an information resource of a content publisher, a request to receive information for inserting a creative within one or more third-party content slots available on the information resource (paragraph 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Burke with the content insertion from performed auction of Kirillov (paragraph 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claims 28 and 37-39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
25. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES N HICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/CHARLES N HICKS/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
/BENJAMIN R BRUCKART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights