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
This office action is in response to communication filed 8/15/2024. Claims 52-71 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
3. Claims 52-60 and 62-70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of US Patent No. 10051326 (hereafter “Patent’326”) in view of Badawiyeh et al (US 2014/0089957).
As to independent claim 52, Claim 1 of Patent’326 discloses a method comprising: selecting a specific advertisement slot, from a plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, for inserting an advertisement, wherein selection of the specific advertisement slot comprises: determining, based on user consumption history, which advertisement slot, from the plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, has a level of user engagement; and selecting the advertisement slot with the level of user engagement (see Claim 1), but does not expressly disclose identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel, or that the level user engagement corresponds to a highest advertisement consumption value, or selecting the first advertisement slot as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement. Badawiyeh discloses identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel, and that a level of user engagement corresponds to a highest advertisement consumption value and selecting the first advertisement slot as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see citation and Examiner’s explanation in the 102 rejection to claim 52 below for the corresponding claim limitations, e.g., Figure 2; [0022]; [0026]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 1 of Patent’326 with Badawiyeh. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to insert advertisement during time when user most likely to view (Badawiyeh, [0022]-[0023]; [0041]).
As to independent claim 62, see similar rejection to claim 52. For memory and I/O circuitry, see Badawiyey, Figure 4. For control circuitry, see Badawiyeh, [0036], wherein the least number of inputs such as whether change channels being stored in the memory is implied in order for the value to be used to determine time spent on the current channel, see [0026], “tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel”.
As to dependent claims 53-56, 60, 63-66, and 70, see Badawiyeh, as cited in the corresponding claims in the 102 rejection below.
As to dependent claims 57 and 67, see Claim 1 of Patent’326.
As to dependent claims 59 and 69, see Claim 1 of Patent’326.
3. Claims 58 and 68 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 4 of US Patent No. 10051326 (hereafter “Patent’326”) in view of Badawiyeh et al (US 2014/0089957).
As to claim 58, Claim 4’s parent Claim 1 of Patent’326 in view of Badawiyeh discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in Claim 1 of the instant application above, but does not expressly disclose generating a vector comprising a data structure that includes a plurality of different input types and a corresponding frequency of user inputs for each input type of the plurality of different input types. Claim 4 of Patent’326 teaches generating a vector comprising a data structure that includes a plurality of different input types and a corresponding frequency of user inputs for each input type of the plurality of different input types (see Claim 4 of Patent’326).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 4 of Patent’326 with Badawiyeh. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to organize the user inputs (Claim 4 of Patent’326).
As to claim 68, see similar rejection to claim 58.
3. Claims 61 and 71 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 6 of US Patent No. 10051326 (hereafter “Patent’326”) in view of Badawiyeh et al (US 2014/0089957).
As to dependent claim 61, Claim 6’s parent Claim 1 of Patent’326 in view of Badawiyeh discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in Claim 1 of the instant application above, including identifying the plurality of advertisement slots, wherein the plurality of advertisement slots comprises a first advertisement slot and a second advertisement slot (see Claim 1 of Patent’326). but does not expressly disclose determining a product category respectively associated with each of the first and the second advertisement slots; and comparing the respective product category associated with the first advertisement slot with the respective product category associated with the second advertisement slot; and based at least in part on the comparing, selecting the first advertisement slot as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement. Claim 6 of Patent’326 discloses determining a product category respectively associated with each of the first and the second advertisement slots; and comparing the respective product category associated with the first advertisement slot with the respective product category associated with the second advertisement slot; and based at least in part on the comparing, selecting the first advertisement slot as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see Claim 6 of Patent’326, wherein each of the advertisement slots can be considered either the first advertisement slot or the second advertisement slot).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 6 of Patent’326 with Badawiyeh. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to consider product categories in advertisement slots to assist selecting an advertisement slot (Claim 6 of Patent’326).
As to claim 71, see similar rejection to claim 61.
3. Claims 52-60 and 62-70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US Patent No. 10341725 (hereafter “Patent’725”) in view of Badawiyeh et al (US 2014/0089957).
As to independent claim 52, claim 4 of Patent’725 discloses a method comprising: selecting a specific advertisement slot, from a plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, for inserting an advertisement, wherein selection of the specific advertisement slot comprises: determining, based on user consumption history, which advertisement slot, from the plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, has a level of user engagement; and selecting the advertisement slot with a level of user engagement as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see claim 4’s parent claim 1), but does not expressly disclose identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel, or that the level user engagement corresponds to a highest advertisement consumption value. Badawiyeh discloses identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel, and that a level of user engagement corresponds to a highest advertisement consumption value (see citation and Examiner’s explanation in the 102 rejection to claim 52 below for the corresponding claim limitations, e.g., Figure 2; [0022]; [0026]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine claim 4 of Patent’725 with Badawiyeh. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to insert advertisement during time when user most likely to view (Badawiyeh, [0022]-[0023]; [0041]).
As to independent claim 62, see similar rejection to claim 52. For memory and I/O circuitry, see Badawiyey, Figure 4. For control circuitry, see Badawiyeh, [0036], wherein the least number of inputs such as whether change channels being stored in the memory is implied in order for the value to be used to determine time spent on the current channel, see [0026], “tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel”.
As to dependent claims 53-56, 60, 63-66, and 70, see Badawiyeh, see citation in the corresponding claims in the 102 rejection below.
As to dependent claims 57-59 and 67-69, see Claim 4 of Patent’725 and its parent Claim 1.
Claims 61 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claim 4 of Patent’725 in view of Badawiyeh, and applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Grief et al (US 2015/0051987).
As to claim 61, Claim 4 of Patent’725 in view of Badawiyeh discloses the method of claim 52, wherein the selecting the advertisement slot comprises: identifying the plurality of advertisement slots, wherein the plurality of advertisement slots comprises a first advertisement slot and a second advertisement slot (Badawiyeh, Figure 2); determining a product category respectively associated with each of the first and the second advertisement slots (Badawiyeh, [0026], “by presenting various types of products, such as athletic gear, home repair products, food products, etc., to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined”. Since the advertisements are presented in a form of advertisement slots as shown in Figure 2, each of these various type of products (athletic hear, home repair products, food products, etc. are necessarily presented via one of the advertisement slots, hence each slot is associated with a product category);
comparing the respective product category associated with the first advertisement slot with the respective product category associated with the second advertisement slot; and based at least in part on the comparing, selecting the first advertisement slot as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see citation above, Badawiyeh, figure 2 and [0026], e.g, “by presenting various types of products, such as athletic gear, home repair products, food products, etc., to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined” wherein “a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined’ indicates a comparison between product types in order to determine “a most effective product type”, where a product type is associated with an advertisement slot as explained in the preceding limitation).
Badawiyeh implies an association between a product category and an advertisement slot as explained above, but does not expressly teach an association between a product category with an advertisement slot. To make the rejection stronger, Grief is brought in to teach an express association between a product category respectively associated with each advertisement slot ([0044], “Association of advertisement types with advertisement slots may be subject to constraints on placement of types of advertisements relative to each other specified by one or more ad placement rules retrieved from the placement rule store 240. Application of one or more ad placement rules allows different advertisement slots to present different types of advertisements. As described above in conjunction with FIG. 2, ad placement rules may limit the number of a type of advertisement presented at one time or may identify positioning of various advertisement types relative to each other. Ad placement rules may also prevent a user from being presented with multiple advertisements of the same type in consecutive advertisement slots to increase user interaction with other types of presented advertisements”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 4 of Patent’725 in view of Badawiyeh with Grief. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to increase user interaction with other types of presented advertisement (Grief, [0044]).
As to claim 71, see similar rejection to claim 61.
5. Claims 52-57, 59-60 and 62-67 and 69-70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of US Patent No. 10667010 (hereafter “Patent’010”) in view of Badawiyeh et al (US 2014/0089957).
As to independent claim 52, Claim 1 of Patent’010 discloses a method comprising: selecting a specific advertisement slot, from a plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, for inserting an advertisement, wherein selection of the specific advertisement slot comprises: determining, based on user consumption history, which advertisement slot, from the plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, has a level of user engagement; and selecting the advertisement slot with a level of user engagement as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see Claim 1), but does not expressly disclose identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel, or that the level user engagement corresponds to a highest advertisement consumption value. Badawiyeh discloses identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel, and that a level user engagement corresponds to a highest advertisement consumption value (see citation and Examiner’s explanation in the 102 rejection to claim 52 below for the corresponding claim limitations, e.g., Figure 2; [0022]; [0026]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 1 of Patent’010 with Badawiyeh. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to insert advertisement during time when user most likely to view (Badawiyeh, [0022]-[0023]; [0041]).
As to independent claim 62, see similar rejection to claim 52. For memory and I/O circuitry, see Badawiyey, Figure 4. For control circuitry, see Badawiyeh, [0036], wherein the least number of inputs such as whether change channels being stored in the memory is implied in order for the value to be used to determine time spent on the current channel, see [0026], “tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel”.
As to dependent claims 53-56, 60, 63-66, and 70, see Badawiyeh, as cited in the corresponding claims in the 102 rejection below.
As to dependent claims 57, 59, 67, and 69, see Claim 1 of Patent’010.
6. Claims 61 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of Patent’010 in view of Badawiyeh, and applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Grief et al (US 2015/0051987).
As to claim 61, Claim 1 of Patent’010 in view of Badawiyeh discloses the method of claim 52, wherein the selecting the advertisement slot comprises:
identifying the plurality of advertisement slots, wherein the plurality of advertisement slots comprises a first advertisement slot and a second advertisement slot (Badawiyeh, Figure 2); determining a product category respectively associated with each of the first and the second advertisement slots (Badawiyeh, [0026], “by presenting various types of products, such as athletic gear, home repair products, food products, etc., to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined”. Since the advertisements are presented in a form of advertisement slots as shown in Figure 2, each of these various type of products (athletic hear, home repair products, food products, etc. are necessarily presented via one of the advertisement slots, hence each slot is associated with a product category);
comparing the respective product category associated with the first advertisement slot with the respective product category associated with the second advertisement slot; and based at least in part on the comparing, selecting the first advertisement slot as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see citation above, Badawiyeh, figure 2 and [0026], e.g, “by presenting various types of products, such as athletic gear, home repair products, food products, etc., to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined” wherein “a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined’ indicates a comparison between product types in order to determine “a most effective product type”, where a product type is associated with an advertisement slot as explained in the preceding limitation).
Although Badawiyeh implies an association between a product category and an advertisement slot as explained above, Badawiyeh does not expressly teach an association between a product category with an advertisement slot. To make the rejection stronger, Grief is brought in to teach an express association between a product category respectively associated with each advertisement slot ([0044], “Association of advertisement types with advertisement slots may be subject to constraints on placement of types of advertisements relative to each other specified by one or more ad placement rules retrieved from the placement rule store 240. Application of one or more ad placement rules allows different advertisement slots to present different types of advertisements. As described above in conjunction with FIG. 2, ad placement rules may limit the number of a type of advertisement presented at one time or may identify positioning of various advertisement types relative to each other. Ad placement rules may also prevent a user from being presented with multiple advertisements of the same type in consecutive advertisement slots to increase user interaction with other types of presented advertisements”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 1 of Patent’010 in view of Badawiyeh with Grief. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to increase user interaction with other types of presented advertisement (Grief, [0044]).
As to claim 71, see similar rejection to claim 61.
7. Claims 52-57, 59-60 and 62-67 and 69-70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11172253 (hereafter “Patent’253”) in view of Badawiyeh et al (US 2014/0089957).
As to independent claim 52, Claim 1 of Patent’253 discloses a method comprising: selecting a specific advertisement slot, from a plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, for inserting an advertisement, wherein selection of the specific advertisement slot comprises: determining, based on user consumption history, which advertisement slot, from the plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, has a level of user engagement; and selecting the advertisement slot with a level of user engagement as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see Claim 1), but does not expressly disclose identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel, or that the level of user engagement corresponds to a highest advertisement consumption value. Badawiyeh discloses identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel, and that a level of user engagement corresponds to a highest advertisement consumption value (see citation and Examiner’s explaination in 102 rejection to claim 52 below, e.g, Figure 2; [0022]; [0026]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 1 of Patent’253 with Badawiyeh. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to insert advertisement during time when user most likely to view (Badawiyeh, [0022]-[0023]; [0041]).
As to independent claim 62, see similar rejection to claim 52. For memory and I/O circuitry, see Badawiyey, Figure 4. For control circuitry, see Badawiyeh, [0036], wherein the least number of inputs such as whether change channels being stored in the memory is implied in order for the value to be used to determine time spent on the current channel, see [0026], “tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel”.
As to dependent claims 53-56, 60, 63-66, and 70, see Badawiyeh, as cited in the 102 rejection to the corresponding claims below.
As to dependent claims 57, 59, 67, and 69, see Claim 1 of Patent’253.
8. Claims 61 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of Patent’253 in view of Badawiyeh, and applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Grief et al (US 2015/0051987).
As to claim 61, Claim 1 of Patent’253 in view of Badawiyeh discloses the method of claim 52, wherein the selecting the advertisement slot comprises:
identifying the plurality of advertisement slots, wherein the plurality of advertisement slots comprises a first advertisement slot and a second advertisement slot (Badawiyeh, Figure 2); determining a product category respectively associated with each of the first and the second advertisement slots (Badawiyeh, [0026], “by presenting various types of products, such as athletic gear, home repair products, food products, etc., to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined”. Since the advertisements are presented in a form of advertisement slots as shown in Figure 2, each of these various type of products (athletic hear, home repair products, food products, etc. are necessarily presented via one of the advertisement slots, hence each slot is associated with a product category);
comparing the respective product category associated with the first advertisement slot with the respective product category associated with the second advertisement slot; and based at least in part on the comparing, selecting the first advertisement slot as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see citation above, Badawiyeh, figure 2 and [0026], e.g, “by presenting various types of products, such as athletic gear, home repair products, food products, etc., to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined” wherein “a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined’ indicates a comparison between product types in order to determine “a most effective product type”, where a product type is associated with an advertisement slot as explained in the preceding limitation).
Although Badawiyeh implies an association between a product category and an advertisement slot as explained above, Badawiyeh does not expressly teach an association between a product category with an advertisement slot. To make the rejection stronger, Grief is brought in to teach an express association between a product category respectively associated with each advertisement slot ([0044], “Association of advertisement types with advertisement slots may be subject to constraints on placement of types of advertisements relative to each other specified by one or more ad placement rules retrieved from the placement rule store 240. Application of one or more ad placement rules allows different advertisement slots to present different types of advertisements. As described above in conjunction with FIG. 2, ad placement rules may limit the number of a type of advertisement presented at one time or may identify positioning of various advertisement types relative to each other. Ad placement rules may also prevent a user from being presented with multiple advertisements of the same type in consecutive advertisement slots to increase user interaction with other types of presented advertisements”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 1 of Patent’253 in view of Badawiyeh with Grief. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to increase user interaction with other types of presented advertisement (Grief, [0044]).
As to claim 71, see similar rejection to claim 61.
9. Claims 52-57, 59-60 and 62-67 and 69-70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11706487 (hereafter “Patent’487”) in view of Badawiyeh et al (US 2014/0089957).
As to independent claim 52, Claim 1 of Patent’487 discloses a method comprising: selecting a specific advertisement slot, from a plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, for inserting an advertisement, wherein selection of the specific advertisement slot comprises: determining, based on user consumption history, which advertisement slot, from the plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, has a level of user engagement; and selecting the advertisement slot with a level of user engagement as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see Claim 1), but does not expressly disclose identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel, or that the level of user engagement corresponds to a highest advertisement consumption value. Badawiyeh discloses identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel, and that a level of user engagement corresponds to a highest advertisement consumption value (see citation and Examiner’s explanation in the 102 rejection to claim 52 below, e.g, Figure 2; [0022]; [0066]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 1 of Patent’487 with Badawiyeh. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to insert advertisement during time when user most likely to view (Badawiyeh, [0022]-[0023]; [0041]).
As to independent claim 62, see similar rejection to claim 52. For memory and I/O circuitry, see Badawiyey, Figure 4. For control circuitry, see Badawiyeh, [0036], wherein the least number of inputs such as whether change channels being stored in the memory is implied in order for the value to be used to determine time spent on the current channel, see [0026], “tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel”.
As to dependent claims 53-56, 60, 63-66, and 70, see Badawiyeh, as cited in the corresponding claims in the 102 rejection below.
As to dependent claims 57, 59, 67, and 69, see Claim 1 of Patent’487.
10. Claims 61 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of Patent’487 in view of Badawiyeh, and applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Grief et al (US 2015/0051987).
As to claim 61, Claim 1 of Patent’487 in view of Badawiyeh discloses the method of claim 52, wherein the selecting the advertisement slot comprises:
identifying the plurality of advertisement slots, wherein the plurality of advertisement slots comprises a first advertisement slot and a second advertisement slot (Badawiyeh, Figure 2); determining a product category respectively associated with each of the first and the second advertisement slots (Badawiyeh, [0026], “by presenting various types of products, such as athletic gear, home repair products, food products, etc., to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined”. Since the advertisements are presented in a form of advertisement slots as shown in Figure 2, each of these various type of products (athletic hear, home repair products, food products, etc. are necessarily presented via one of the advertisement slots, hence each slot is associated with a product category);
comparing the respective product category associated with the first advertisement slot with the respective product category associated with the second advertisement slot; and based at least in part on the comparing, selecting the first advertisement slot as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see citation above, Badawiyeh, figure 2 and [0026], e.g, “by presenting various types of products, such as athletic gear, home repair products, food products, etc., to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined” wherein “a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined’ indicates a comparison between product types in order to determine “a most effective product type”, where a product type is associated with an advertisement slot as explained in the preceding limitation).
Although Badawiyeh implies an association between a product category and an advertisement slot as explained above, Badawiyeh does not expressly teach an association between a product category with an advertisement slot. To make the rejection stronger, Grief is brought in to teach an express association between a product category respectively associated with each advertisement slot ([0044], “Association of advertisement types with advertisement slots may be subject to constraints on placement of types of advertisements relative to each other specified by one or more ad placement rules retrieved from the placement rule store 240. Application of one or more ad placement rules allows different advertisement slots to present different types of advertisements. As described above in conjunction with FIG. 2, ad placement rules may limit the number of a type of advertisement presented at one time or may identify positioning of various advertisement types relative to each other. Ad placement rules may also prevent a user from being presented with multiple advertisements of the same type in consecutive advertisement slots to increase user interaction with other types of presented advertisements”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 1 of Patent’487 in view of Badawiyeh with Grief. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to increase user interaction with other types of presented advertisement (Grief, [0044]).
As to claim 71, see similar rejection to claim 61.
11. Claims 52-57, 59-60 and 62-67 and 69-70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12096077 (hereafter “Patent’077”) in view of Badawiyeh et al (US 2014/0089957).
As to independent claim 52, Claim 1 of Patent’077 discloses a method comprising: selecting a specific advertisement slot, from a plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, for inserting an advertisement, wherein selection of the specific advertisement slot comprises: determining, based on user consumption history, which advertisement slot, from the plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, has a level of user engagement; and selecting the advertisement slot with the level of user engagement as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see Claim 1), but does not expressly disclose identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel, or that the level of user engagement corresponds to a highest advertisement consumption value. Badawiyeh discloses identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel, and that a level of user engagement corresponds to a highest advertisement consumption value (see citation and Examiner’s explanation in the 102 rejection to claim 52 below, e.g., Figure 2; [0022]-[0026]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 1 of Patent’077 with Badawiyeh. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to insert advertisement during time when user most likely to view (Badawiyeh, [0022]-[0023]; [0041]).
As to independent claim 62, see similar rejection to claim 52. For memory and I/O circuitry, see Badawiyey, Figure 4. For control circuitry, see Badawiyeh, [0036], wherein the least number of inputs such as whether change channels being stored in the memory is implied in order for the value to be used to determine time spent on the current channel, see [0026], “tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel”.
As to dependent claims 53-56, 60, 63-66, and 70, see Badawiyeh, as cited in the 102 rejection to the corresponding claims below.
As to dependent claims 57, 59, 67, and 69, see Claim 1 of Patent’077.
12. Claims 61 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of Patent’077 in view of Badawiyeh, and applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Grief et al (US 2015/0051987).
As to claim 61, Claim 1 of Patent’077 in view of Badawiyeh discloses the method of claim 52, wherein the selecting the advertisement slot comprises:
identifying the plurality of advertisement slots, wherein the plurality of advertisement slots comprises a first advertisement slot and a second advertisement slot (Badawiyeh, Figure 2); determining a product category respectively associated with each of the first and the second advertisement slots (Badawiyeh, [0026], “by presenting various types of products, such as athletic gear, home repair products, food products, etc., to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined”. Since the advertisements are presented in a form of advertisement slots as shown in Figure 2, each of these various type of products (athletic hear, home repair products, food products, etc. are necessarily presented via one of the advertisement slots, hence each slot is associated with a product category);
comparing the respective product category associated with the first advertisement slot with the respective product category associated with the second advertisement slot; and based at least in part on the comparing, selecting the first advertisement slot as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see citation above, Badawiyeh, figure 2 and [0026], e.g, “by presenting various types of products, such as athletic gear, home repair products, food products, etc., to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined” wherein “a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined’ indicates a comparison between product types in order to determine “a most effective product type”, where a product type is associated with an advertisement slot as explained in the preceding limitation).
Although Badawiyeh implies an association between a product category and an advertisement slot as explained above, Badawiyeh does not expressly teach an association between a product category with an advertisement slot. To make the rejection stronger, Grief is brought in to teach an express association between a product category respectively associated with each advertisement slot ([0044], “Association of advertisement types with advertisement slots may be subject to constraints on placement of types of advertisements relative to each other specified by one or more ad placement rules retrieved from the placement rule store 240. Application of one or more ad placement rules allows different advertisement slots to present different types of advertisements. As described above in conjunction with FIG. 2, ad placement rules may limit the number of a type of advertisement presented at one time or may identify positioning of various advertisement types relative to each other. Ad placement rules may also prevent a user from being presented with multiple advertisements of the same type in consecutive advertisement slots to increase user interaction with other types of presented advertisements”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 1 of Patent’077 in view of Badawiyeh with Grief. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to increase user interaction with other types of presented advertisement (Grief, [0044]).
As to claim 71, see similar rejection to claim 61.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
13. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
14. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
15. Claims 52-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a) Claim 52 recites “identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel.”
First of all, regarding “a highest level of user engagement”, it is unclear what other levels of user engagement the claimed “a highest level of user engagement” is compared with, and whether and how “a highest level of user engagement” relate to other broadcast channels of the plurality of broadcast channels. Since the claim recites “identifying a broadest channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels”, an ordinary skilled in the art would expect a comparison across the plurality of broadcast channels, however, nothing in the claim recites anything that calculates a level of user engagement in different broadcast channels. For example, the subsequent limitation that narrows down “a highest level of user engagement” recites “wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel” without reciting any other broadcast channels at all. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any “a highest level of user engagement”, regardless whether or not related to other broadcast channels.
Secondly, it is unclear how “a highest level of user engagement” is determined, even in light of the subsequent limitation “wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel”. This subsequent limitation also relies on relative terms such as “a highest amount”, “a least number”, but nothing contained in the claim sets forth what these “highest amount” or “least number” are compared with or how these “highest amount” or “least number” are obtained. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any level of user engagement obtained using any criterion.
Thirdly, regarding “a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel”, since there is one “content” recited, it is unclear how a user could have more than one amount of time spent consuming the same content on the same broadcast channel to compare with each other for obtaining “a highest amount of time spent”, or how the user could have more than one number of total inputs while consuming the same content on the same broadcast channel for obtaining “a least number of inputs”, especially when the claim does not mention multiple time intervals at all. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes my amount of time spent and any number of inputs obtained using any criterion during any time interval.
b) Claim 52 recites “a highest advertisement consumption value.” It is unclear whether and how this recited “a highest advertisement consumption value” relates to the earlier recited “a highest level of user engagement”, “a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel”, or “a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel.” For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any relationship.
c) Claims 53-71 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
17. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
18. Claims 52-56, 60, 62-66, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Badawiyeh et al (US 2014/0089957).
As to claim 52, Badawiyeh discloses a method comprising:
identifying a broadcast channel, from a plurality of broadcast channels, with a highest level of user engagement, wherein the highest level of user engagement is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel and a least number of inputs while consuming the content on the broadcast channel (see 112 rejection above and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See Figure 2, during 9pm to 9:15pm, channel 1 (first row) is selected from three channels, for presenting advertisements, wherein channel 1 during this time period (9 pm to 9:15pm) has a highest level of user engagement compared with the other two channels (row 2 and row 3) during the same time period, see [0022], ““advertising content is scheduled to be presented based on user interaction with media content/scheduled programming. For example, FIG. 2 depicts a timing diagram for dynamic advertisement insertion during programming in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. As depicted in FIG. 2, advertising breaks are scheduled dynamically in "user time" and in response to user behavior as described herein. In FIG. 2, it is assumed that a user has exhibited the following behavior. A user typically watches the first 15 minutes of "Lost" at 9 pm on a first programming channel and then switches to an alternate programming channel for watching the remaining portion of "Survivor" from 9: 15 pm until 10 pm. The user then typically remains on the same programming channel and watches the "Big Brother" from 10 pm until 10:20 pm. The user then switches to an alternate programming channel and watches the remaining portion of "House" from 10:20 until 11 pm and remains on the same programming channel for watching "ESPN" from 11 pm-12 am”; [0023], “In accordance with the depicted embodiment of the present invention of FIG. 2, having knowledge of the user's previous behavior by, for example tracking the user's previous interactions with media content, a method, apparatus and system of the present invention schedules the presentation of advertising content at times during which the user is most likely to view the advertising content. For example, in the embodiment of FIG. 2, advertising content is scheduled to be presented during the first 15 minutes of "Lost" during which the user has exhibited a likelihood to be viewing”. Because during 9pm to 9:15pm, the user is projected to stay on channel 1 to view “Lost”, not on other channel(s), channel 1 has a highest level of user engagement during this time period, wherein the highest level of user engagement during this time period is determined based on a highest amount of time spent consuming content on the broadcast channel during this time period, see [0022] as cited above, based on user history, during this time period, the user spent all time in channel 1 viewing “Lost”, therefore a highest amount of time spent consuming content on this channel 1. This highest level of user engagement is also based on a least number of inputs while consuming the content, e.g., zero number of switching-channel inputs before the end of the time interval. The concept of using NO switching-channel inputs to deduce time spent and hence highest level of user engagement is taught in [0026], “user's interaction with a particular type of content can be tracked … tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel”.
It is to be noted that Examiner’s rejection is based on her interpretation stated and explained in the 112 rejection section above);
selecting a specific advertisement slot, from a plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, for inserting an advertisement (Figure 2, e.g., channel 1 in row 1, wherein two advertisement slots are inserted with advertisement, out of all possible advertisement slots in the same channel (uninserted slots shown as unchecked squares). Any one of the inserted slots reads on the selected specified advertisement slot from a plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel. Also See [0022], “instead of scheduling advertising breaks periodically, for example every 15 minutes as is typical in a prior art system such as the prior art system of FIG. 1, in an embodiment of the present invention, advertising content is scheduled to be presented based on user interaction with media content/scheduled programming. For example, FIG. 2 depicts a timing diagram for dynamic advertisement insertion during programming in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. As depicted in FIG. 2, advertising breaks are scheduled dynamically in "user time" and in response to user behavior as described herein. In FIG. 2, it is assumed that a user has exhibited the following behavior. A user typically watches the first 15 minutes of "Lost" at 9 pm on a first programming channel and then switches to an alternate programming channel for watching the remaining portion of "Survivor" from 9: 15 pm until IO pm. The user then typically remains on the same programming channel and watches the "Big Brother" from 10 pm until 10:20 pm. The user then switches to an alternate programming channel and watches the remaining portion of "House" from 10:20 until 11 pm and remains on the same programming channel for watching "ESPN" from 11 pm-12 am”; [0023], “In accordance with the depicted embodiment of the present invention of FIG. 2, having knowledge of the user's previous behavior by, for example tracking the user's previous interactions with media content, a method, apparatus and system of the present invention schedules the presentation of advertising content at times during which the user is most likely to view the advertising content. For example, in the embodiment of FIG. 2, advertising content is scheduled to be presented during the first 15 minutes of "Lost" during which the user has exhibited a likelihood to be viewing”), wherein selection of the specific advertisement slot comprises:
determining, based on user consumption history, which advertisement slot, from the plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel, has a highest advertisement consumption value (See 112 rejection above and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See citation and Examiner’s explanation in the preceding limitation, wherein the advertisement slot to insert advertisement is determined from all possible plurality of advertisement slots in the broadcast channel (row 1), based on user consumption history, has a highest advertisement consumption value, i.e., “during which the user is most likely to view the advertising content”. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific type of “highest advertisement consumption value”, nor does the claim require that only one advertisement slot has the “highest advertisement consumption value”. As cited above, any one of these advertisement slots that are during projected “use time” and correspond to “during which the user is most likely to view the advertising content” has “highest advertisement consumption value” compared to those during non-use time in the same channel, e.g., see Figure 2, for channel 1 as shown in row 1, only the “use time” advertisement slots (9pm to 9:15pm) are inserted. Also see [0029], “if a user is known to habitually select specific channels during specific periods of viewing time, a decision can be made to selectively present advertising during the viewing of specific channels and to not present advertising during the viewing of other channels”, confirming that other advertisement slots in the same channel are not used once the user is projected to switch out of the channel and not viewing the channel”); and
selecting the advertisement slot with the highest advertisement consumption value as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see citation and explanation in the preceding limitation).
As to claim 62, see similar rejection to claim 52. For memory and I/O circuitry, see Figure 4. For control circuitry, see [0036], wherein the least number of inputs such as whether change channels being stored in the memory is implied in order for the value to be used to determine time spent on the current channel, see [0026], “tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel”.
As to claim 53, Badawiyeh discloses the method of claim 52, further comprising:
identifying the plurality of broadcast channels based at least in part on monitoring user navigation patterns, wherein the monitoring comprises monitoring an amount of time spent consuming content on each broadcast channel, of the plurality of broadcast channels, and a number of inputs entered during the consumption, respectively (see citation in rejection to claim 52, e.g., Figure 2; [0022] and [0026], wherein the amount of time spent on each channel is monitored and recorded, such as 9pm to 9:15pm on channel 1, and wherein the number of inputs correspond to channel changes);
comparing the consumption time and the number of user inputs respectively associated with each broadcast channel (see citation in rejection to claim 52, e.g., Figure 2; [0022] and [0026], wherein in each time interval, the time spent in channels including whether there is a channel change are compared based on tracked channel switching frequency. See also [0029]); and
based at least in part on the comparing, identifying the broadcast channel with the highest level of user engagement (see citation and Examiner’s explanation in rejection to claim 52, e.g., Figure 2; [0022] and [0026], wherein in each time interval, such as from 9pm to 9:15pm, a highest level of user engagement is identified as being associated with channel 1(row 1)).
As to claim 63, see similar rejection to claim 53.
As to claim 54, Badawiyeh discloses the method of claim 52, wherein the least number of inputs relate to a modification of media device functionality associated with consuming content on the broadcast channel, and wherein the least number of inputs are at least one of volume change, brightness adjustment, channel change, power on or off commands or information requests (see citation and explanation in rejection to claim 52, [0022] and [0026], channel change).
As to claim 64, see similar rejection to claim 54.
As to claim 55, Badawiyeh discloses the method of claim 52, further comprising:
determining that the advertisement slot with the highest advertisement consumption value corresponds to a time interval of a plurality of time intervals associated with the broadcast channel, wherein the time interval is associated with the highest level of user engagement and is defined by a start time and an end time (see citation and Examiner’s explanation in rejection to claim 52, e.g., Figure 2 and [0022], wherein the time interval for the advertisement slot with the highest advertisement consumption value is 9pm to 9:15pm for channel 1 (row 1 in Figure 2), which corresponds to the highest level of user engagement during this time period, defined by a start time of 9pm and end time of 9:15pm); and
inserting the advertisement at the time interval corresponding to the advertisement slot with the highest advertisement consumption value (see citation and Examiner’s explanation in rejection to claim 52, e.g., Figure 2 and [0022]).
As to claim 65, see similar rejection to claim 55.
As to claim 56, Badawiyeh discloses the method of claim 52, further comprising:
retrieving a first record of at least one first user input received during a display of a first broadcast channel, wherein the first broadcast channel is associated with a first consumption time (see citation in rejection to claim 52, e.g., Figure 2; [0022], wherein the at least one first user input received during a display of channel 1 (row 1) is switch to or initiate the “Lost” program, the channel 1 is associated with a first consumption time of 9pm to 9:15pm);
retrieving a second record of at least one second user input received during a display of a second broadcast channel, wherein the second broadcast channel is associated with a second consumption time (see citation in rejection to claim 52, e.g., Figure 2; [0022], wherein the at least one second user input received during a display of channel 2 (row 2) are 1) switch to or initiate the “Survivor” program, 2) switch to or initiate the “Big Brother” program, wherein this channel 2 is associated with a second consumption time of 9:15pm to 10:20pm);
determining a first frequency value of the at least one first user input received during the first consumption time (see citation above, the first frequency value is 1 user input, see also [0041], “a frequency with which a user switches between available programing channels is tracked, advertising content is scheduled to be presented at a time during which a user is most likely to be viewing a particular channel and as such, to view the advertising content”);
determining a second frequency value of the at least one second user input received during
the second consumption time (see citation above, wherein the second frequency value is two user inputs);
comparing the first frequency value of the at least one first user input with the second frequency value of the at least one second user input (Figure 2 and [0022], wherein from 9pm to 9:15pm the user initiates and watches “Lost” continuously on channel 1 with, while from 9:15pm to 10:20m the user switched to channel 2 to initiate watching “Survivor”, but then switch to a different program “Big Brother” on the same channel (channel 2). These switch/initiating actions are compared, before determining when and where to insert advertisement, see also [0029]. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific way to “compare”); and
determining, for the first broadcast channel and the second broadcast channel, the broadcast channel with the highest level of user engagement (see citation and Examiner’s explanation in rejection to claim 52, wherein during 9pm-9:15pm, channel 1 is determined to have the highest level of user engagement. It is to be noted that the claim does not require any specific relationship between the compared frequency and the highest level of user engagement, nor does the claim require a specific relationship between the frequencies and the least number of inputs as recited in parent claim 52. Moreover, the recited channels are not required to be any of the channels recited in the parent claim 52).
As to claim 66, see similar rejection to claim 56.
As to claim 60, Badawiyeh discloses the method of claim 52, wherein the least number of inputs is a number of inputs that is less than a threshold number of user inputs (see citation and Examiner’s explanation, wherein threshold is 1).
As to claim 70, see similar rejection to claim 60.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
20. 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 of this title, 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.
21. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
22. Claims 57, 59, 67 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badawiyeh et al (US 2014/0089957) in view of Oracle “Oracle Enterprise Data Quality").
As to claim 57, Badawiyeh discloses the method of claim 52, further comprising:
generating a first metric that describes a first frequency of at least one first user input received during a first advertisement slot of the plurality of advertisement slots ([0041], “a frequency with which a user switches between available programing channels is tracked, advertising content is scheduled to be presented at a time during which a user is most likely to be viewing a particular channel and as such, to view the advertising content”; [0026], “a user's interaction with a particular type of content can be tracked to determine a most effective means of advertising for a particular user. For example, by presenting various types of advertising platforms, such as a banner ad, video, cartoon, 3D based ad or the like, to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective advertising platform for that user can be determined.” Since advertisements are presented in a form of advertisement slots as shown in Figure 2, each advertising platform can correspond to an advertisement slot, during which time a frequency/rate of channel change is monitored, in order to determine “a most effective advertising platform for that user”);
generating a second metric that describes a second frequency of at least one second user input received during a second advertisement slot of the plurality of advertisement slots (see citation in preceding limitation, multiple advertising platforms/slots are monitored, in order to determine “a most effective advertising platform for that user”);
calculating respective differences between the first metric and the second metric based at least in part on comparing the first frequency with the second frequency (see citation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., “a most effective advertising platform for that user” indicates calculating the channel switching frequency differences between the advertising platforms/slots in order to find a most effective one. It is to be noted that using percent difference vs using difference is a design choice); and
based at least in part on the calculating, selecting the advertisement slot with the highest advertisement consumption value (see citation in rejection to limitation 1, wherein “a most effective advertising platform for that user” based on tracking “how long a user views” determined using tracked channel switching frequency” corresponds to the highest advertisement consumption value), but does not expressly disclose percent difference. Oracle discloses using percent difference in place of raw difference (Page 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Badawiyeh with Oracle. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to determine how close they are, relative to the larger value (Oracle, Page 1, Para 1).
As to claim 67, see similar rejection to claim 57.
As to claim 59, Badawiyeh-Oracle discloses the method of claim 57, wherein the user consumption history comprises the first frequency of the at least one first user input received during the first advertisement slot of the plurality of advertisement slots and the second frequency of the at least one second user input received during the first advertisement slot of the plurality of advertisement slots (see citation in rejection to claim 57, e.g., [0026]).
As to claim 69, see similar rejection to claim 59.
23. Claims 58 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badawiyeh in view of Oracle, as applied to claim 57 above, and further in view of Wilson et al (US 2015/0170300).
As to claim 58, Badawiyeh-Oracle discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in 57, including wherein the generating the first metric comprises generating a vector comprising a data structure that includes an input type and a corresponding frequency of user input for the input type (see citation in rejection to claim 57, e.g., Badawiyeh, [0041], “a frequency with which a user switches between available programing channels is tracked, advertising content is scheduled to be presented at a time during which a user is most likely to be viewing a particular channel and as such, to view the advertising content; [0026], “a user's interaction with a particular type of content can be tracked to determine a most effective means of advertising for a particular user. For example, by presenting various types of advertising platforms, such as a banner ad, video, cartoon, 3D based ad or the like, to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective advertising platform for that user can be determined.”, wherein a stored vector between an input type, i.e., channel change, and its corresponding frequency for such channel change user input is implied in order to be compared to determine “a most effective advertising platform for that user”), but does not expressly disclose a plurality of different input types and a corresponding frequency of user inputs for each input type. Wilson discloses a concept of storing a vector comprising a data structure that includes a plurality of different user input types and a corresponding frequency of user inputs for each user input type ([0055], “a user activity table 304 that stores a historical record of user activity for each type of action a user may perform while using the real estate marketing platform 100. In some embodiments, the user activity table 304 may include an aggregate value for the number of times certain actions are performed”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Badawiyeh-Oracle with such concept of Wilson. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to track user activity for each input type (Wilson, [0055]).
As to claim 68, see similar rejection to claim 58.
24. Claims 61 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badawiyeh, as applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Grief et al (US 2015/0051987).
As to claim 61, Badawiyeh discloses the method of claim 52, wherein the selecting the advertisement slot comprises:
identifying the plurality of advertisement slots, wherein the plurality of advertisement slots comprises a first advertisement slot and a second advertisement slot (Figure 2); determining a product category respectively associated with each of the first and the second advertisement slots ([0026], “by presenting various types of products, such as athletic gear, home repair products, food products, etc., to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined”. Since the advertisements are presented in a form of advertisement slots as shown in Figure 2, each of these various type of products (athletic hear, home repair products, food products, etc. are necessarily presented via one or more of the advertisement slots, hence each slot is associated with a product category);
comparing the respective product category associated with the first advertisement slot with the respective product category associated with the second advertisement slot; and based at least in part on the comparing, selecting the first advertisement slot as the specific advertisement slot for inserting the advertisement (see citation above, figure 2 and [0026], e.g, “by presenting various types of products, such as athletic gear, home repair products, food products, etc., to a user and tracking how long a user views the advertisement, by for example determining if a user changed to a different channel, a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined” wherein “a most effective product type to be advertised to that user can be determined’ indicates a comparison between product types in order to determine “a most effective product type”, where a product type is associated with an advertisement slot as explained in the preceding limitation).
Although Badawiyeh implies an association between a product category and an advertisement slot as explained above, Badawiyeh does not expressly teach an association between a product category with an advertisement slot. To make the rejection stronger, Grief is brought in to teach an express association between a product category respectively associated with each advertisement slot ([0044], “Association of advertisement types with advertisement slots may be subject to constraints on placement of types of advertisements relative to each other specified by one or more ad placement rules retrieved from the placement rule store 240. Application of one or more ad placement rules allows different advertisement slots to present different types of advertisements. As described above in conjunction with FIG. 2, ad placement rules may limit the number of a type of advertisement presented at one time or may identify positioning of various advertisement types relative to each other. Ad placement rules may also prevent a user from being presented with multiple advertisements of the same type in consecutive advertisement slots to increase user interaction with other types of presented advertisements”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Badawiyeh with Grief. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to increase user interaction with other types of presented advertisement (Grief, [0044]).
As to claim 71, see similar rejection to claim 61.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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 Information 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.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights