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
This Office Action is responsive to communications filed on 2 July 2026; Claim(s) 1 and 9 have been amended, Claims 5 and 13 have been cancelled and no new Claims have been added, therefore Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, and 14-15 is/are pending in the application and have been presented for examination.
Examiner Notes
The Applicant has amended the claims to include the limitation of, “by the one or more hardware processors, transforming the contents or different contents of the at least one campaign using external contents provided by a user or dashboard contents provided or recommended by the dashboard”, the Examiner notes that the term “transforming” is not found in the specification. However, according to the Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0046 of the PG-PUB, “ the user may perform editing such as switching a material of the campaign executed on the at least one medium to active or inactive, or changing the material to a different material via the dashboard. Here, according to one embodiment of the invention, the user may edit the materials of the campaign using a content (e.g., text, images, or audio) that the user personally possesses, or using at least one of a plurality of contents (e.g., text, images, or audio) provided (or recommended) by the dashboard”, see also 0062. Therefore, it appears that “transforming the contents” encompasses changing or editing the content in some manner (i.e., changing the image, text or video of the content).
The Examiner is interpreting the term “transform[ing]” as encompassing the same meaning as “chang[ing]” and/or “edit[ing]”. Any other interpretation does not appear to be supported by the specification.
Summary
Office Action Summary:
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 112(a) for introducing new matter, therefore the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection.
Amendments to the claims do not overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101 for being directed to an abstract idea, therefore the Examiner has maintained the rejection.
The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments; however they are not persuasive and/or they are moot, see Response to Arguments below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it is determined that claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-15 are directed to a system and method.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, Claim 1 recites, "A method performed in a system for providing information on an advertising campaign, the system comprising one or more hardware processors and the method comprising the steps of: by the one or more hardware processors , interworking with at least one medium and acquiring data associated with two or more campaigns executed on the at least one medium, using an open application programming interface (API) or a scraping technique; by the one or more hardware processors, classifying, by medium or by campaign, data being selected from the acquired data and corresponding to the two or more campaigns: by the one or more hardware processors, generating data on comparison between the two or more campaigns based on the classified data, the two or more campaigns being specified based on a first output of a learning model trained on the basis of information on previous inputs from a user; by the one or more hardware processors, populating the classified data and the comparison data onto a dashboard in real time for visualization by the one or more hardware processors, customizing the populated data based on a second output of the learning model or a different learning model: by the one or more hardware processors, generating alarm data in response to the acquired data satisfying a predetermined condition that includes total advertising costs of the two or more campaigns exceeding a predetermined level; by the one or more hardware processors, switching contents of at least one campaign of the two or more campaigns between active status and inactive status in response to a switching input from the dashboard: and by the one or more hardware processors, transforming the contents or different contents of the at least one campaign executed on the at least one medium in real time via the dashboard, without a user directly accessing the at least one medium, using external contents provided by the user or dashboard contents provided or recommended by the dashboard”, the underlined limitations indicate additional elements that are to be further analyzed at Step 2A-2. Independent claim 9 is similar to Claim 1 except for reciting, “A system for providing information on an advertising campaign”, therefore claim 9 is analyzed similarly as claim 1.
The claim(s) are found to be within the enumerated group(s) of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, specifically as it relates to advertising/marketing or sales activities.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the limitations of - A method performed in a system, one or more hardware processors, by the one or more hardware processors, acquiring data associated with two or more campaigns executed on the at least one medium, using an open application programming interface (API) or a scraping technique; classifying, by medium or by campaign, data being selected from the acquired data, generating data on comparison between the two or more campaigns based on the classified data, the two or more campaigns being specified based on a first output of a learning model trained on the basis of information on previous inputs from a user; populating the classified data and the comparison data onto a dashboard in real time for visualization by the one or more hardware processors, generating alarm data in response to the acquired data satisfying a predetermined condition that includes total advertising costs of the two or more campaigns exceeding a predetermined level; by the one or more hardware processors, switching contents of at least one campaign of the two or more campaigns between active status and inactive status in response to a switching input from the dashboard: and by the one or more hardware processors, transforming the contents or different contents of the at least one campaign executed on the at least one medium in real time via the dashboard, without a user directly accessing the at least one medium, using external contents provided by the user or dashboard contents provided or recommended by the dashboard (Claim 1), A system for providing information on an advertising campaign (Claim 9) - does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application because the claims recite generic computer components performing generic computer functions which amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment.
The Examiner notes that the learning model is not positively claimed, just the output of the model – therefore the learning model is not considered to be an additional element.
Furthermore, Clam 1 indicates “using” a machine learning model to perform one or more steps – however the machine learning module is recited at a high level of generality and can be regarded as being nothing more than at an “apply it” level.
The amended limitation of, “acquiring data associated with two or more campaigns executed on the at least one medium, using an open application programming interface (API) or a scraping technique”, appears to just be gathering campaign data using common data scraping techniques, and can be regarded as insignificant extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The amended limitation of, “transforming the contents or different contents of the at least one campaign executed on the at least one medium in real time via the dashboard, without a user directly accessing the at least one medium”, appears to just be performing an update to the advertising contents based on user input, thus there does not appear to be any technical improvement recited, furthermore and improvement would appear to be rooted in the abstract idea.
The claim limitations of, “classifying, by medium or by campaign, data being selected from the acquired data, generating data on comparison between the two or more campaigns based on the classified data by the one or more hardware processors, populating the classified data and the comparison data onto a dashboard in real time for visualization by the one or more hardware processors”, appears to just be filtering and displaying data based on user input, which can be regarded as insignificant extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitation of, “generating alarm data in response to the acquired data satisfying a predetermined condition that includes total advertising costs of the two or more campaigns exceeding a predetermined level”, appears to lend a hand to the abstract idea. Furthermore, according the Applicant’s specification “generating alarm data” encompasses generating a pop-up, text, image, graph, tables, etc. (see the Specification (PG-PUB) at 0043-044), which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The amended limitations of, “by the one or more hardware processors, switching contents of at least one campaign of the two or more campaigns between active status and inactive status in response to a switching input from the dashboard: and by the one or more hardware processors, transforming the contents or different contents of the at least one campaign using external contents provided by a user or dashboard contents provided or recommended by the dashboard”, the Examiner finds to lend a hand to the abstract idea by editing or changing underperforming/over budget campaign content/material, the computer components are recited at a high level of generality such that is appears to be nothing more than “apply it”. The “switching contents of at least one campaign of the two or more campaigns between active status and inactive status in response to a switching input from the dashboard”, appears to just be inactivating the content/material based on input from the user.
The Examiner notes that according to the Applicant’s specification (PG-PUB) at paragraph 0034-0035, “a campaign executed on at least one medium” is referring to a website or platform (0034-0035, “…a campaign executed on at least one medium. Here, the medium according to one embodiment of the invention refers to a website or platform on the Internet where digital marketing may be conducted, such as Google, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Kakao, and Naver”).
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15 are also considered to be encompassed by the abstract idea for indicating, the type if campaign data acquired (claim 2, 10), the type of populated data displayed to the user (claim 3, 11), customizing the populated data displayed to the user (claim 4, 12), allowing the user to view or edit the campaign (claim 5, 13), receiving an alarm based on the data (claim 6, 14), and generating comparison data based on user input and context (claim 15).
The limitations of the claim(s) does not appear to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field; does not provide any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; does not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; it does not add a specific limitation, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim(s) to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. None of the limitations, considered alone or in an ordered combination provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claim(s) is/are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment.
Under Eligibility Step 2B analysis, the claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim includes that, as stated above, it is implemented by a system or a non-transitory computer-readable medium is nothing more than “apply it” with instruction to a generic computer. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked to perform the abstract idea.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 112(a) for introducing new matter, therefore the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection.
Amendments to the claims do not overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101 for being directed to an abstract idea, therefore the Examiner has maintained the rejection.
The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments; however they are not persuasive and/or they are moot, see Response to Arguments below.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s argument regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been considered but is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the amended claims recite an improved content generation and modification system with improved visualization system, however the Examiner does not find these arguments to be persuasive since the Applicant does not particularly point out how the amended claims provide an improved content generation/modification and visualization system. The Claim(s) when considered individually and as a whole merely recite an abstract idea.
The Applicant further argues that the amended claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, however the amended claims appear to just be automating a user task, for example the limitation of, “transforming the contents or different contents of the at least one campaign executed on the at least one medium in real time via the dashboard, without a user directly accessing the at least one medium” – appears to be nothing more than updating a campaign associated with a particular website or platform based on the user input. The amended claim(s) appear to be directed to the abstract idea or recite insignificant extra solution activity. Therefore, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments to be persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 2 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELINDA GIERINGER whose telephone number is (408)918-7593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (11AM-6PM ET).
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 on (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.
/M.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights