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 .
Request for 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have been fully considered, but they are moot because of the new ground of rejection. Applicant argues that cited references failed to disclose determine whether to output the linear media item or the determined media item based on the indication in the decisioning response, wherein if the decisioning response indicates that no substitution should be performed, the linear media item is output and if the decisioning response indicates the determined media item, the determined media item is output.
However, Jentz et al show in fig.1 to fig.6 a system with Ad-decisioning server 320 for being able to make determination to replace original ads or not to replace original ads with other ads based on specific criteria as disclosed in para. 0065-0069; 0071-0073;0004.This action is made non-final.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3; 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romrell(US.Pub.No.20170289228) in view of Jentz(US.Pub.No.20220264161).
Regarding claim 1, Romrell et al disclose a media substitution system comprising a decisioning service in communication with a plurality of clients(see fig.1 to fig.3 with content decision server 250), each said client being arranged to receive at least one media channel having a break defined therein(the system can provide manifest files to users; 0003-0006), the break comprising at least one substitutable spot containing a linear media item(the system provides cues or locations associated with replacements contents; 0048; 0075-0076) , and, for the or each substitutable spot, send a decisioning request to the decisioning service(users have the capability to send request for contents;abstract;0004;0014; 0017) , the decisioning request including client data specific to that client; wherein the decisioning service is arranged to(the identification of user device is embedded in request for contents;0084):
in an initial processing step, determine from the decisioning request whether the linear media item should be output in the corresponding substitutable spot, and if so, provide a decisioning response to the client indicating that no substitution should be performed in the corresponding substitutable spot(see fig.1 to fig.3 for making decision in substituting contents or not based on specific conditions; 0084-0086);
and otherwise, in a further processing step, determine a media item to be output in the corresponding substitutable spot, and provide a decisioning response to the client indicating the determined item(the system is able to forward response from servers to client devices via the router 210; 0051-0054) , wherein the further processing step is based on the decisioning request and on additional data not contained in the decisioning request; wherein the client is arranged to receive the decisioning response (see fig.1 to fig.3 for deciding to display original content or substituted content based on response received from content decision server 250; 0075;0084-0086;0014; 0017).
But did not explicitly disclose determine whether to output the linear media item or the determined media item based on the indication in the decisioning response, wherein if the decisioning response indicates that no substitution should be performed, the linear media item
is output and if the decisioning response indicates the determined media item, the determined media item is output.
However, Jentz et al disclose determine whether to output the linear media item or the determined media item based on the indication in the decisioning response, wherein if the decisioning response indicates that no substitution should be performed, the linear media item
is output and if the decisioning response indicates the determined media item, the determined media item is output( see fig.1 to fig.6 with Ad-decisioning server 320 for being able to make determination to replace original ads or not to replace original ads with other ads based on specific criteria; 0065-0069; 0071-0073;0004).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Jentz to modify Romrell by providing options to make determination to output the original advertisement or output alternate advertisement based on specific decisions being made by a server for the purpose of improving viewing experiences accordingly.
Regarding claim 2 , Romrell et al disclose wherein the decisioning request includes channel data obtained from the media channel relating to the or each substitutable spot, and the decisioning service is arranged to perform the initial processing step based on the channel data and the client data(the system is able to provide manifest files to users containing channel information; 0003-0006;0075-0076;0087).
Regarding claim 3, Romrell et al disclose wherein the channel data includes a linear profile relating to the linear media item and the client data includes a client profile associated with the respective client, and the initial processing step includes determining that the linear item should be output in the corresponding substitutable spot if the client profile matches the linear profile(the system is able to provide substituted contents based on geographic and preferences of the users; 0086;0022;0048).
Regarding claim 5, Romrell et al disclose wherein the client data includes a trial or opt-out indication, and wherein the initial processing step includes determining from the trial or opt-out indication that the linear media item should be output in the corresponding spot substitutable(see fig.1 to fig.3 for allowing the system to make if to display original content or substituted in a specific spot and the system can monitor metrics data to generate report; 0087;0084-0086;0049;0078).
Regarding claim 6, Romrell et al disclose wherein the additional data includes additional profile data associated with the client(the system is able to collect preferences and geographic data associated with the users; 0086;0048;0022).
Regarding claim 7, Romrell et al disclose wherein the additional data includes schedule data indicating one or more substitutable items associated with the or each corresponding substitutable spot(the system is able to identify metadata related to supplemental contents from the manifest file having schedule time and duration and ownership of supplemental contents; ;0076; 0003-0006;0075-0076;0087).
Regarding claim 8, Romrell et al disclose wherein the decisioning service comprises a router and a decisioning server, the router being arranged to receive the decisioning request and to perform the initial processing step, and if the result of the determination of the initial processing step is not that the linear item is to be output, to route the decisioning request to the decisioning server; and wherein the decisioning server is arranged to perform the further processing step(see fig.1 to fig.3 with content decision server 250 and the router 210 for making decisions based on received requests; 0051-0054;0072;0081-0082;0074-0076).
Regarding claim 9, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romrell(US.Pub.No.20170289228) in view of Jentz(US.Pub.No.20220264163) and Vadlamani(US.Pub.No.20110258032).
Regarding claim 4, Romrell and Jentz et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the channel data includes an inactivity threshold, and the client data indicates an inactivity time of the client, and wherein the decisioning service includes determining that the linear item should be output in the corresponding substitutable spot if the inactivity time exceeds the inactivity threshold.
However, Vadlamani et al disclose wherein the channel data includes an inactivity threshold( the advertisement system 206 may identify user inactivity for a threshold;0033) and the client data indicates an inactivity time of the client, and wherein the decisioning service includes determining that the linear item should be output in the corresponding substitutable spot if the inactivity time exceeds the inactivity threshold(the system is able to provide supplemental contents based on inactivity period associated with the users; 0019;0033;0070;0073).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Vadlamani to modify Romrell and Jentz by providing options to monitor or track inactivity threshold of the users for the purpose of providing supplemental contents accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 5712727527. 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.
/JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights