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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/13/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1,18,20 have been amended.
Claim 19 has been canceled.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 10/13/2025, have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
Applicant stated “ In this response, no claims have been canceled (page 1/8)”. However claim 19 has been canceled. Therefore, only Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
With regard to claims 20-21 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant’s reply amended the claims 20-21 to recite “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
With regard to claims 1-18 and 20-21 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.| 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. In view of the foregoing amendments, it is respectfully submitted the above objection has been overcome. Claims 1-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.| 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. Claims 1-18, and 20-21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter (page 1/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. First, there is no claim Objection issued. Second, it appears that Applicant has miss-understood Examiner’s rejection. Neither claims 20-21 nor claims 1-18, and 20-2, the Office Action indicated as recited a mental process. The only abstract idea bucket in which performance by a human is required is the "Mental Process" bucket which requires that the steps be capable of being performed in the human mind. The claims of the instant invention have not been identified as a "Mental Process".
Instead, the claims of the instant invention have been identified as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". The Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines indicate that "advertising, marketing or sales related activities" is a subcategory of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". There is no requirement that these "advertising, marketing, or sales related activities" be performed by a human being. Therefore, all steps involved in the performance of advertising, marketing or sales related activities are part of the abstract idea itself irrespective of whether they are performed by a computer or performed by a human being. Thus, the applicant's arguments are moot. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-18, 20-21 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “The Examiner rejects these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to the abstract idea of a "method of organizing human activity" without significantly more. Applicant notes that the rejection was issued shortly after the Office's 2019 Guidance ("2019 Guidance") regarding Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, and does not apply this new guidance. As such, Applicant submits that the current rejection under § 101 should be withdrawn (page 2/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. The Office's 2019 Guidance ("2019 Guidance") regarding Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, is applied to the current and previous rejections issued (see Office Action mailed on 03/11/2025 and 06/18/2025). Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to the abstract idea of a "method of organizing human activity". As thus, the claim rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-21 are maintained.
The Claims Fail to Satisfy Both Prongs of Step 2A :
Applicant argues that “In the Office action, the Examiner rejects the claims under Step 2A by analogizing the elements of the claim to previous cited decisions (e.g., Int. Ventures, Electric Power Group, etc.). In the 2019 Guidance, the Office has explicitly stated that this type of analysis is improper. As such, Applicant respectfully asserts that the Examiner's analysis under Step 2A is inappropriate and renders the § 101 rejection fatally deficient. Applicant requests the Examiner either withdraw the rejection or apply the two-prong analysis outlined in the 2019 Guidance. Applicant asserts that the claims do not satisfy either prong of the two-prong Step 2A analysis, but provides a brief discussion of the analysis to expedite prosecution (page 2/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. The PTO’s preliminary guidelines, which have been followed by Examiner, are completely in line with Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, and provide substantive criteria to both examiners and applicants in defining an abstract idea within a claim and determining overall subject matter eligibility.
As such, it is Examiner's position that the office's action is supported by fact and analysis and has provided sufficient rationale and explanation.
The courts have indicated “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis are abstract ideas in at least (Electric Power Group) decisions (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Bilski v. Kappos”).
Also, Under the newer guidelines “the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Elgibility Guidance (2019 PEG)” and therefore, it is a mere manipulation data (i.e. gathering data in an unconventional way) on a computer, which fails to achieve practical result. Under the newer guidelines “the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Elgibility Guidance (2019 PEG)”.
As such the Office Action’s position that claim 1, for instance recites the following abstract idea limitations: “displaying, a splash advertisement, wherein the splash advertisement is displayed after a first application is opened and before the first application displays content; detecting, first operation of a user, wherein the first operation is clicking a preset area; and displaying, in response to detecting the first operation, wherein the first interface comprises a first advertisement, wherein the first advertisement is associated with the splash advertisement, and wherein content of the first advertisement is related to content of the splash advertisement”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). Also, see MPEP 2106.04 (a)( 2), “ identifying Abstract Idea “ certain methods of Organizing human Activity”.
Accordingly, the Examiner's analysis under Step 2A prong one and Prong two (see the rejection below) is appropriate and renders claims 1-18, and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 insufficient to confer patent eligibility. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-18, and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, is maintained.
Applicant argues that “the elements of the claims (individually or in combination) do not fall into any of these categories. Rather they are a practical application of a computing methodology that provides the improved message display method and related device. The application is practical at least due to detecting, by the processor of the terminal device, a first operation of a user, wherein the first operation is clicking a preset area; and displaying, by the terminal device, a first interface of a first application in response to detecting the first operation, wherein the first interface comprises the first advertisement, wherein the first advertisement is associated with the splash advertisement, wherein content of the first advertisement is related to content of the splash advertisement, and wherein if the processor needs to use data of the first advertisement and the splash advertisement again, the processor directly invokes the data from a memory, avoids repeated access and reduces waiting time of the process, thereby improving system efficiency, as contrasted to being merely a mental or abstract process divorced from any real-world object (page 3/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. The use of “ the processor of the terminal device, memory” fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method ( message display method and related device), and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself.
In the instant case the only additional elements are “display, device, an interface and the processor of the terminal device, memory”, to provide a consistent user experience via a user input which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. user interfaces (Uls) for performing user input is old and well known as per Usability.gov. As per Affinity v. Direct TV such generic user interfaces are generic computer components. Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13- Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms.
Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of “ are “display, device, an interface and the processor of the terminal device, memory”,” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As thus, the claim rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, is maintained.
Applicant argues that “the claims are not organizing "human activity." This category is primarily directed towards "economic" or "commercial" practices, as well as managing human relationships. There is no element of the claim that falls within this category. For example, detecting, by the processor of the terminal device, a first operation of a user, wherein the first operation is clicking a preset area; and displaying, by the terminal device, a first interface of a first application in response to detecting the first operation, wherein the first interface comprises the first advertisement, wherein the first advertisement is associated with the splash advertisement, wherein content of the first advertisement is related to content of the splash advertisement, and wherein if the processor needs to use data of the first advertisement and the splash advertisement again, the processor directly invokes the data from a memory, avoids repeated access and reduces waiting time of the process, thereby improving system efficiency, and is not describing a mere organization of human activity. Thus, the claims do not fall into an Office-enumerated category of abstract idea and fail prong one of Step 2A. Since the claims do not pass prong one, the claims are per se not directed to an abstract idea (page 4/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. Claim 1, for instance recites the following abstract idea limitations: “displaying, a splash advertisement, wherein the splash advertisement is displayed after a first application is opened and before the first application displays content; detecting, first operation of a user, wherein the first operation is clicking a preset area; and displaying, in response to detecting the first operation, wherein the first interface comprises a first advertisement, wherein the first advertisement is associated with the splash advertisement, and wherein content of the first advertisement is related to content of the splash advertisement”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). Also, see MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2), identifying Abstract Idea “certain methods of Organizing human Activity”.
As thus, the claim rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “the claims are explicitly tailored toward improving the functioning of a computer system for the improved message display method and related device that are uniquely tied to the features that implement that improvement. For instance, the claims explicitly recite detecting, by the processor of the terminal device, a first operation of a user, wherein the first operation is clicking a preset area; and displaying, by the terminal device, a first interface of a first application in response to detecting the first operation, wherein the first interface comprises the first advertisement, wherein the first advertisement is associated with the splash advertisement, wherein content of the first advertisement is related to content of the splash advertisement, and wherein if the processor needs to use data of the first advertisement and the splash advertisement again, the processor directly invokes the data from a memory, avoids repeated access and reduces waiting time of the process, thereby improving system efficiency. This is a practical application in the field of the communication. Applicant asserts that the claims improve the functioning of such message display method and related device. Finally, the 2019 Guidance states that revised Step 2A specifically excludes consideration of whether additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The 2019 Guidance further states that examiners should ensure that they give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. As such, neither prong of Step 2A is met, and the claims thus are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant invites the Examiner to contact Applicant's representative to further discuss the appropriate analysis under Step 2A given the new Guidance (page 4/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. The use of “ the processor of the terminal device, memory” fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method ( message display method and related device), and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself.
In the instant case the only additional elements are “display, device, an interface and the processor of the terminal device, memory”, to provide a consistent user experience via a user input which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. user interfaces (Uls) for performing user input is old and well known as per Usability.gov. As per Affinity v. Direct TV such generic user interfaces are generic computer components. Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13- Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms.
Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of “ are “display, device, an interface and the processor of the terminal device, memory”,” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As thus, following the 2019 Guidance, the Examiner did give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. As such, claim 1, for instance fails Step 2a, Prong 2 and Step 2A Prong One, and the claims thus are directed to an abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
As thus, the claim rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, is maintained.
The Claims DO NOT Recite Significantly More than the Examiner's Identified Abstract Idea
Applicant argues that “The ordered combination of elements presently claimed represent a unique, ordered combination which inherently adds "significantly more" to the alleged abstract idea. That is, the ultimate goals of the present claims are achieved using a specific, ordered combination of computing functions [and arrangement of components] and thus add significantly more to the "gist" of the invention (page 5/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. The use of “ the processor of the terminal device, memory” fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method ( message display method and related device), and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself.
In the instant case the only additional elements are “display, device, an interface and the processor of the terminal device, memory”, to provide a consistent user experience via a user input which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. user interfaces (Uls) for performing user input is old and well known as per Usability.gov. As per Affinity v. Direct TV such generic user interfaces are generic computer components. Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13- Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms.
Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of “ are “display, device, an interface and the processor of the terminal device, memory”,” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. As thus, the claim rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, is maintained.
Applicant argues that “Should the Examiner persist in rejecting the claims as being patent ineligible under § 101, the PTO's Guidelines dictate that the Examiner should, for each claim (regardless of whether the claim is an independent claim or a dependent claim) that is being rejected, identify the specific element(s) of the claim that the Examiner contends is directed to an abstract idea and explain why the Examiner considers the identified element(s) corresponds to an abstract idea found by a court. The Examiner Has Failed to Provide Support Under the Guidance Even further, as per the Court's holding in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., and set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I), an Examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the Examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent based on a factual determination. Applicant submits that the claim elements are not routine or conventional, either individually or as an ordered combination, and requests the Examiner to put forth the needed citation, statement, extrinsic evidence or other form of proof that rises to the "factual determination" as required by Berkheimer and § 2106.05(d)(I). Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits in light of the above that the § 101 rejection is deficient and should be withdrawn (page 6/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. It appears that the applicant has misinterpreted MPEP 2106.05(d) and the Berkheimer memo. MPEP 2106.05(d) requires that the examiner determine whether the "additional element(s)" of a claim are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry in regards to evaluating the claim under Step 2b. Berkheimer requires the examiner to provided proof of "additional elements" that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. "Additional elements" are defined as those element outside the identified abstract itself. The only additional elements of the argued limitations are additional elements are “display, device, an interface and the processor of the terminal device, memory”, which is merely a general-purpose computer. The examiner has provided proof of this in the rejection itself based on the applicant's disclosure. A general-purpose computer which merely applies an abstract idea is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" under Step 2b as clearly indicated in at least MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As thus, the claim rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, is maintained.
With regard to claims 1-18 and 20-21 rejection under 35 USC § 102 and 103:
Examiner is hereby clarifying the record, and withdraw “Possible allowable subject matter” statement with regard to previous indication of the claims may be allowed, because “ No prior art cited and/or found for the limitations of independent claims 1 and 18”. However, after careful consideration of the cited prior art and Applicant’s own admission “ paragraph 3”, teaches displaying, by a processor of a terminal device, a splash advertisement, wherein the splash advertisement is displayed after a first application is opened and before the first application displays content, the above limitations of independent claims 1 and 18 among other limitations are addressed in the rejection below.
Double Patenting Rejection
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claims 1-21 of Patent No: 12153936 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because they merely recite obvious variants of claims 1-21 of Patent No: 12153936 B2.
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 1-18 and 20-21are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1-17 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claim 18 is directed to a machine (i.e. device); assuming that claims 20-21 are amended as suggested above, are directed to a manufacture (i.e. a non-transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “displaying, by a processor of a terminal device, a splash advertisement, wherein the splash advertisement is displayed after a first application is opened and before the first application displays content; detecting, by the processor of the terminal device, a first operation of a user, wherein the first operation is clicking a preset area; and displaying, by the processor of the terminal device, a first interface of the first application in response to detecting the first operation, wherein the first interface comprises a first advertisement, wherein the first advertisement is associated with the splash advertisement, wherein content of the first advertisement is related to content of the splash advertisement, and wherein if the processor needs to use data of the first advertisement and the splash advertisement again, the processor directly invokes the data from a memory, avoids repeated access and reduces waiting time of the process, thereby improving system efficiency”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “ display, device, an interface and a processor of a terminal device”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of: “ display, device, an interface and a processor of a terminal device”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 41, 206); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 18 and 20.
The dependent claims 2-16 and 21 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of: wherein the preset area is an area of the splash advertisement, the preset area does not belong to a skip area of the splash advertisement, and the preset area does not belong to a details viewing area; or the preset area is an advertisement picture display area of the splash advertisement ( claims 2 and 21); wherein the first interface comprises a home page of the first application, or the first interface comprises a slide-down page of the home page of the first application, or the first interface comprises a video play page (claim 3); displaying, by the terminal device, a second splash advertisement; determining, by the terminal device, that the user did not click a skip area and the user did not click a details viewing area; and displaying, by the terminal device, a second interface of the first application, wherein the second interface comprises a second advertisement, and content of the second advertisement is related to content of the second splash advertisement (claim 4); wherein the first advertisement is a banner advertisement, or the first advertisement is an interstitial advertisement, or the first advertisement is a floating icon advertisement, and the floating icon advertisement is displayed above a page of the first application (claim 5); wherein the second advertisement is a banner advertisement, an interstitial advertisement, or a floating icon advertisement, and the floating icon advertisement is displayed above a page of the first application (claim 6); wherein preset duration is set for the floating icon, and the floating icon advertisement is displayed on the page of the first application within the preset duration (claim 7); detecting, by the terminal device, a second operation performed by the user on the first advertisement; and displaying an advertisement landing page of the first advertisement in response to the second operation (claim 8); detecting, by the terminal device, a third operation performed by the user on the splash advertisement; and displaying an advertisement landing page of the splash advertisement in response to the third operation, wherein the advertisement landing page of the splash advertisement is the same as the advertisement landing page of the first advertisement ( claim 9); wherein before the displayingthe splash advertisement, the method further comprises: sending, by the terminal device, a splash advertisement request to an advertisement server; receiving, by the terminal device, a returned message sent by the advertisement server in response to the splash advertisement request, wherein the returned message comprises splash advertisement information and a first advertisement information set, the first advertisement information set comprises one or more pieces of first advertisement information, and advertisement content of the one or more first advertisements is related to advertisement content of the splash advertisement; and obtaining, by the terminal device, an advertisement material of the splash advertisement and an advertisement material of the first advertisement based on the returned message (claim 10); wherein the splash advertisement request comprises one or more of : a pre-loading identifier, an advertisement slot identifier, a device identifier, a user identifier, user behavior data, or the like (claim 11); detecting, by the terminal device, a fourth operation of the user, wherein the fourth operation is clicking the skip area; displaying, by the terminal device, a third interface of the first application, and displaying, by the third interface, a third advertisement, wherein content of the third advertisement is unrelated to the content of the splash advertisement; and obtaining, by the terminal device, an advertisement material of the third advertisement based on a second returned message ( claim 12); the third interface of the first application, and displaying advertisement information to be displayed in the third interface from the advertisement server; and receiving, by the terminal device, the second returned message sent by the advertisement server in response to the third advertisement request, wherein the second returned message comprises third advertisement information, and advertisement content of the third advertisement information is unrelated to the advertisement content of the splash advertisement; detecting, by the terminal device, the fourth operation of the user, wherein the fourth operation is clicking the skip area; and displaying, by the terminal device, the third interface of the first application, and skipping displaying, by the third interface, the first advertisement ( claim 14); wherein before the sending the splash advertisement request to an advertisement server, the method further comprises: obtaining, by the terminal device, a first operation of the user, wherein the first operation is used to open an application (claim 15); wherein the returned message comprises one or more of : a download link of an advertisement material, an identifier of an advertisement, a name of the advertisement, a package name of an application, or address information of the terminal device (claim 16); wherein the obtaining the advertisement material of the splash advertisement and the advertisement material of the first advertisement based on the returned message comprises: downloading, by the terminal device, the advertisement material of the splash advertisement and the advertisement material of the first advertisement from the advertisement server; or determining, by the terminal device, whether the advertisement material of the splash advertisement and the advertisement material of the first advertisement are locally cached, and if the advertisement material of the splash advertisement and the advertisement material of the first advertisement are locally cached, obtaining, by the terminal device, the advertisement material of the splash advertisement and the advertisement material of the first advertisement locally ( claim 17); which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims 1, 18 and 20.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mo et al, CN110430324 B.
As per claims 1, 18, Mo teaches:
displaying, by a processor of a terminal device, a splash advertisement, wherein the splash advertisement is displayed after a first application is opened and before the first application displays content (see at least paragraphs 53-54 and 63-65; paragraph 53 ( step 7: Today's head is loaded with a render-on-screen advertisement and is displayed by an operating system, as shown in (c) in FIG. 2. The user can see the off-screen advertisement from the brand slogan approximately 1-2s when seeing today's head. The display time of the open-screen advertisement can be 3 -5s, and it can be configured) ; paragraph 55 (wherein, before displaying the first page of the head page, the processing logic of the screen opening function, namely the step 3-step 7 occurs after the mobile phone operating system pulling the head, realized by the inner part of the head);
detecting, by the processor of the terminal device, a first operation of a user, wherein the first operation is clicking a preset area (see at least paragraph 66 (the electronic device 401 after receiving the user opening operation of the application, also can asynchronously obtain the application of the opening screen configuration information to the screen opening management server 402. The electronic device 401 may also asynchronously send the advertisement request for requesting the on-screen advertisement to the off-screen management server 402, so as to obtain the proper advertisement originality information) ;
displaying, by the processor of the terminal device, a first interface of the first application in response to detecting the first operation, wherein the first interface comprises a first advertisement, wherein the first advertisement is associated with the splash advertisement, wherein content of the first advertisement is related to content of the splash advertisement, and wherein if the processor needs to use data of the first advertisement and the splash advertisement again, the processor directly invokes the data from a memory, avoids repeated access and reduces waiting time of the process, thereby improving system efficiency (see at least paragraph 66 (the electronic device 401 after receiving the user opening operation of the application, also can asynchronously obtain the application of the opening screen configuration information to the screen opening management server 402; paragraph 78 (The memory may store instructions or data that the processor 110 has just used or recycled. If the processor 110 needs to use the instruction or data again, it may be invoked directly from the memory. It avoids the repeated access, reduces the waiting time of the processor 110, so as to improve the efficiency of the system);
Examiner notes : For the purpose of this Examination the prior art terms (s) “ screen open and/ or opening screen” refers to “ the splash advertisement” ; and “management server 402 refers to the splash server”.
As per claim 2, Mo teaches:
wherein the preset area is an area of the splash advertisement, the preset area does not belong to a skip area of the splash advertisement, and the preset area does not belong to a details viewing area; or the preset area is an advertisement picture display area of the splash advertisement (see at least paragraph 26 (the electronic device receives the click operation of the link of the first application by the user; the link of the first application is contained in the page of the second application; the click operation of the link of the first application by the user is used for opening the first application; paragraph 66 (the electronic device 401 after receiving the user opening operation of the application, also can asynchronously obtain the application of the opening screen configuration information to the screen opening management server 402) ;
As per claim 3, Mo teaches:
wherein the first interface comprises a home page of the first application, or the first interface comprises a slide-down page of the home page of the first application, or the first interface comprises a video play page (see at least paragraphs 71 and 208; paragraph 71 (open screen information display after the application of the application of the default page (such as home page) of the link path) ; paragraph 85 (The application processor outputs a sound signal through an audio device (not limited to a speaker 170A, a receiver 170B, etc.), or displays an image or a video through a display screen 194, such as display screen opening information);
As per claim 4, Mo teaches:
displaying, by the processor of the terminal device, a second splash advertisement; determining, by the processor of the terminal device, that the user did not click a skip area and the user did not click a details viewing area ; displaying, by the processor of the terminal device, a second interface of the first application, wherein the second interface comprises a second advertisement, and content of the second advertisement is related to content of the second splash advertisement (see at least paragraph ( see at least paragraph 26 (the electronic device receives the click operation of the link of the first application by the user; the link of the first application is contained in the page of the second application; the click operation of the link of the first application by the user is used for opening the first application );
As per claim 5, Mo teaches:
wherein the first advertisement is a banner advertisement, or the first advertisement is an interstitial advertisement, or the first advertisement is a floating icon advertisement, and the floating icon advertisement is displayed above a page of the first application (see at least paragraph 53 (Today's head is loaded with a render-on-screen advertisement and is displayed by an operating system, as shown in (c) in FIG. 2);
As per claim 6, Mo teaches:
wherein the second advertisement is a banner advertisement, an interstitial advertisement, or a floating icon advertisement, and the floating icon advertisement is displayed above a page of the first application (see at least paragraph 63 (the electronic device 401 can select the proper screen-opening advertisement from the local cache of the open-screen advertisement, the electronic device 401 of the operating system is displayed to the user. In some other embodiments, the electronic device 401 can display application brand slogan and screen opening advertisement to the user through the operating system of the electronic device 401);
As per claim 7, Mo teaches:
wherein preset duration is set for the floating icon, and the floating icon advertisement is displayed on the page of the first application within the preset duration (see at least paragraph 53 (Today's head is loaded with a render-on-screen advertisement and is displayed by an operating system, as shown in (c) in FIG. 2. The user can see the off-screen advertisement from the brand slogan approximately 1-2s when seeing today's head. The display time of the open-screen advertisement can be 3- 5s, and it can be configured) ;
As per claim 8, Mo teaches:
detecting, by the processor of the terminal device, a second operation performed by the user on the first advertisement; and displaying, by the processor, an advertisement landing page of the first advertisement in response to the second operation (see at least paragraph 53 (Today's head is loaded with a render-on-screen advertisement and is displayed by an operating system, as shown in (c) in FIG. 2. The user can see the off-screen advertisement from the brand slogan approximately 1-2s when seeing today's head. The display time of the open-screen advertisement can be 3- 5s, and it can be configured) ; paragraph 54 (the user can manually skipping or waiting for about 3-5s after the open-screen advertisement display is finished, the mobile phone can display the first page of today's head, as shown in FIG. 2 (d). To this end, the start of the headline was completed today);
As per claim 9, Mo teaches:
detecting, by the processor of the terminal device, a third operation performed by the user on the splash advertisement; and displaying, by the processor, an advertisement landing page of the splash advertisement in response to the third operation, wherein the advertisement landing page of the splash advertisement is the same as the advertisement landing page of the first advertisement (see at least paragraph 48 (step 3: After pulling up today's head, the head of the mobile phone can be loaded with the rendering default white screen, and displayed by the operating system, as shown in (a) in FIG. 2. wherein, the white screen can be used as the page transition from the desktop or other application to the mark in the head. The operation from the user to open today's head is to see that the white screen is about 100-200ms); paragraph 55 (wherein, before displaying the first page of the head page, the processing logic of the screen opening function, namely the step 3-step 7 occurs after the mobile phone operating system pulling the head, realized by the inner part of the head);
As per claim 10, Mo teaches:
wherein before the displaying the splash advertisement, the method further comprises:
sending, by the processor of the terminal device, a splash advertisement request to an advertisement server;
receiving, by the processor of the terminal device, a returned message sent by the advertisement server in response to the splash advertisement request, wherein the returned message comprises splash advertisement information and a first advertisement information set, the first advertisement information set comprises one or more pieces of first advertisement information, and advertisement content of the one or more first advertisements is related to advertisement content of the splash advertisement;
obtaining, by the processor of the terminal device, an advertisement material of the splash advertisement and an advertisement material of the first advertisement based on the returned message;
See at least paragraphs 45-50; paragraph 46 step 1: The operating system of the mobile phone receives the operation of opening the head by the user; paragraph 47( step 2: the operation system of the mobile phone according to the operation of the user, the background preparation initializing the resource needed by the head, and using these resources to initialize the head, so as to pull the head;
Paragraph 48 ( step 3: After pulling up today's head, the head of the mobile phone can be loaded with the rendering default white screen, and displayed by the operating system, as shown in (a) in FIG. 2.wherein, the white screen can be used as the page transition from the desktop or other application to the mark in the head. The operation from the user to open today's head is to see that the white screen is about 100-200ms); paragraph 49 ( step 4: after the headline initialization is completed, if the headline needs to perform the application brand slogan display, then the brand slogan for rendering the headline today, and displayed by the operating system, as shown in FIG. 2 (b). The user can see the brand Slogan of today's head by seeing the white screen about 300-500ms. That is to say, the operation from the user to open today's head is about 500ms to see the brand Slogan of today's headline);
As per claim 11, Mo teaches:
wherein the splash advertisement request comprises one or more of: a pre-loading identifier, an advertisement slot identifier, a device identifier, a user identifier, or user behavior data (see at least paragraph 68 (The advertisement originality information may also include: The identification (ID, ID) of the on-screen advertisement, price belongs to which promotion task and so on);
As per claim 12, Mo teaches:
detecting, by the processor of the terminal device, a fourth operation of the user, wherein the fourth operation is clicking a skip area; displaying, by the processor of the terminal device, a third interface of the first application, and displaying, by the processor of the third interface, a third advertisement, wherein content of the third advertisement is unrelated to the content of the splash advertisement; and obtaining, by the terminal device, an advertisement material of the third advertisement based on a second returned message (see at least paragraph 54 (the user can manually skipping or waiting for about 3-5s after the open-screen advertisement display is finished, the mobile phone can display the first page of today's head, as shown in FIG. 2 (d). To this end, the start of the headline was completed today); paragraph 158 (the open-screen advertisement cached in the mobile phone can be dynamically updated when the user opens the application with function of screen-opening function in the mobile phone); paragraph 158 (the open-screen advertisement cached in the mobile phone can be dynamically updated when the user opens the application with function of screen-opening function in the mobile phone);
As per claim 13, Mo teaches:
sending, by the processor of the terminal device, a third advertisement request to an advertisement server, wherein the third advertisement request is used to request advertisement information to be displayed in the third interface from the advertisement server (see at least paragraph 158 (the open-screen advertisement cached in the mobile phone can be dynamically updated when the user opens the application with function of screen-opening function in the mobile phone);
receiving, by the processor of the terminal device, the second returned message sent by the advertisement server in response to the third advertisement request, wherein the second returned message comprises third advertisement information, and advertisement content of the third advertisement information is unrelated to the advertisement content of the splash advertisement (see at least paragraph 8 (As shown in FIG. 2 (c), the mobile phone display screen-opening advertisement 203. Finally, after the opening screen advertisement 203 display or the user manually clicks skipping the opening screen advertisement 203, as shown in FIG. 2 (d), the mobile phone automatically displays the first page 204 of today's head) ; paragraph 46 step 1: The operating system of the mobile phone receives the operation of opening the head by the user; paragraph 47( step 2: the operation system of the mobile phone according to the operation of the user, the background preparation initializing the resource needed by the head, and using these resources to initialize the head, so as to pull the head; Paragraph 48 ( step 3: After pulling up today's head, the head of the mobile phone can be loaded with the rendering default white screen, and displayed by the operating system, as shown in (a) in FIG. 2.wherein, the white screen can be used as the page transition from the desktop or other application to the mark in the head. The operation from the user to open today's head is to see that the white screen is about 100-200ms); paragraph 49 ( step 4: after the headline initialization is completed, if the headline needs to perform the application brand slogan display, then the brand slogan for rendering the headline today, and displayed by the operating system, as shown in FIG. 2 (b). The user can see the brand Slogan of today's head by seeing the white screen about 300-500ms. That is to say, the operation from the user to open today's head is about 500ms to see the brand Slogan of today's headline);
As per claim 14, Mo teaches:
by the processor of the terminal device, a fourth operation of the user, wherein the fourth operation is clicking the skip area; and displaying, by the processor of the terminal device, a third interface of the first application, and skipping displaying, by the third interface, the first advertisement (see at least paragraph 54 (the user can manually skipping or waiting for about 3-5s after the open-screen advertisement display is finished, the mobile phone can display the first page of today's head, as shown in FIG. 2 (d). To this end, the start of the headline was completed today); paragraph 158 (the open-screen advertisement cached in the mobile phone can be dynamically updated when the user opens the application with function of screen-opening function in the mobile phone);
As per claim 15, Mo teaches:
obtaining, by the processor of the terminal device, a first operation of the user, wherein the first operation is used to open an application (see at least paragraph 179 (the mobile phone receives the user opening today head operation as an example. The system open-screen management module of the mobile phone can request the open screen advertisement to the system open-screen service module of the mobile phone, wherein it can carry the packet name of the head);
As per claim 16, Mo teaches:
wherein the returned message comprises one or more of: a download link of an advertisement material, an identifier of an advertisement, a name of the advertisement, a package name of an application, or address information of the terminal device (see at least paragraph see at least paragraph 68 (The advertisement originality information may also include: The identification (ID, ID) of the on-screen advertisement, price belongs to which promotion task and so on);
As per claim 17, Mo teaches:
downloading, by the processor of the terminal device, the advertisement material of the splash advertisement and the advertisement material of the first advertisement from the advertisement server; or determining, by the processor of the terminal device, whether the advertisement material of the splash advertisement and the advertisement material of the first advertisement are locally cached, and if the advertisement material of the splash advertisement and the advertisement material of the first advertisement are locally cached, obtaining, by the terminal device, the advertisement material of the splash advertisement and the advertisement material of the first advertisement locally (see at least paragraph 176 (S714, the open-screen management server to the system of the mobile phone service module returns the advertisement originality information, advertisement creative information comprises a download path of the open-screen advertisement) ;
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Jones et al, US Pat No: 8,805,715 B1 teaches method for improving performance of messages including Splash pages.
Robins et al, US Pat No: 6173445 B1 teaches Dynamic splash screen.
Brown et al, US Pub No: 2015/0073892 A1, teaches systems and methods for opening an application associated with an advertisement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622