DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and other independent claims, Applicant alleges that Wolinsky does not disclose the concept of a territorial spot distribution since the selection element of Wolinsky does not enable a user to select multiple DMAs for a single reservation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wolinsky discloses (¶0044) that the selection element on the user interface allows a user to select one or more DMAs in which airtime is to be reserved. Even though Fig. 9 of Wolinsky is unclear about this selection, above mentioned paragraph explicitly teaches selecting multiple DMAs. Also, nowhere in the claim defines more than territorial spots are selected. Therefore, it moots Applicant’s argument and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention such as mathematical relationship indicated by any territorial spot distribution settings, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the territorial spot distribution goal category 66 is associated with a goal condition 78. The goal condition 78 specifies a preference that the spots within the formed spot set satisfy a designated distribution throughout the territory 54 (FIG. 1). In the example shown, the goal condition 78 includes a preference that the spot seeker's selected markets 50, 52 each have: (a) a designated ratio of the quantity of spots per market (e.g., Ratio=Single Market's Spots/Total Quantity of Spots of all Selected Markets); or (b) a designated quantity of spots based on an average (e.g., Total Spots/Total Quantity of Spots of all Selected Markets=Average); (b) a territorial spot distribution pull-down menu or selector 118, enabling the user to select one spots per market ratio (e.g., 1:3) from a plurality of different spots per market ratios, such as the ratios of the goal condition 78 (FIG. 3), a goal variable 56) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regard to the dependent claims, the respective rejections are maintained as Applicant has only argued that Wolinsky does not cure the deficiencies, nevertheless it is the Examiner's contention that Wolinsky does not contain any deficiencies. See the rejection below.
See the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2012/0260281 to Wolinsky (“Wolinsky”) in view of US PG Pub 2009/0150930 to Sherwin (“Sherwin”).
Regarding claim 13, “A system operable to electronically control graphics related to one or more advertising goals, wherein the system comprises: a data storage device comprising a plurality of computer-readable instructions configured to direct one or more processors to perform a plurality of steps” reads on the system/method for managing airtime on television network (abstract) disclosed by Wolinsky and represented in Fig. 9. Wolinsky further discloses (¶0028) that the computer software program is embodied on the storage executed on a computing system.
As to “wherein the steps comprise: generating at least one graphical interface that is configured to display:…a second graphic configured to indicate at least one of a plurality of territorial spot distribution settings” Wolinsky discloses (¶0044) that the device is provided with the user interface which displays plurality of options where one of the selection elements allows a user to select one or more DMAs in which the airtime is to be reserved as represented in Fig. 9 (element 904).
As to “in response to a second input, causing the second graphic to graphically represent one of the territorial spot distribution settings, wherein the represented territorial spot distribution setting indicates a mathematical relationship between: a quantity of advertising spots, wherein each of the advertising spots is designated for one of the impressions; and a quantity of a plurality of different markets within a territory, wherein a plurality of the advertising spots are available within a plurality of the markets” Wolinksy discloses (¶0044) that the selection element 904 allows a user to select one or more DMAs in which the airtime is to be reserved; the booking agent also selects number of spots via a selection element 908 to book time frames, such as week(s), during which the airtime is to be booked using selection element 910 associated with the DMA as represented in Figs. 9-10; (¶0041) the management of the airtime is performed through a contractual relationship between the national network service provider and television network local affiliates to manage airtime for retailer local affiliates in specific designated market areas.
Wolinsky meets all the limitations of the claim except “a first graphic configured to indicate at least one of a plurality of spot airtime length settings.” However, Sherwin discloses (¶0067) that the ad units are created by the system as the initial construct in support of a placement opportunity; the system operator is provided with New Ad unit user interface where the ad units are defined by duration setting as represented in Fig. 6 (element 78).
As to “in response to a first input, causing the first graphic to graphically represent one of the spot airtime length settings, wherein the represented spot airtime length setting indicates a spot time value, wherein the spot time value is desirable for one of a plurality of impressions of an advertisement” Sherwin discloses (¶0067, TABLE 1) that the ad unit is defined by the duration where ethe duration indicates the total duration of the ad unit where the system operator selects duration for the ad as represented in Fig. 6 (element 78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wolinsky’s system by using spot airtime length setting as taught by Sherwin in order to enable a provider of content with the ability to dynamically identify and customize advertisement placement opportunities for dynamic decisions, and distribute advertisement placement opportunities according to market, technical, and customer needs (Sherwin - ¶0009).
Regarding claim 14, “The system of claim 13, wherein the first graphic comprises an airtime length selector” Sherwin discloses (¶0067) that the system operator is provided with New Ad unit user interface where the ad units are defined by duration setting of the ad as represented in Fig. 6 (element 78).
Regarding claim 15, “The system of claim 13, wherein the second graphic comprises a territorial spot distribution selector” Wolinsky discloses (¶0044) that the device is provided with the user interface which displays plurality of options where one of the selection elements allows a user to select one or more DMAs in which the airtime is to be reserved as represented in Fig. 9 (element 904).
Regarding claim 16, “The system of claim 13, wherein the mathematical relationship comprises one of: (a) a specification of a designated quantitative distribution of the impressions across the different markets; (b) a ratio of: (i) a total quantity of the advertising spots; to (ii) the quantity of the different markets; (c) a value of advertising spots per market; (d) a value of impressions per market; (e) an average value that is determined based on a plurality of factors, wherein the factors comprise: (i) a total quantity of the advertising spots available in all of the different markets; and (ii) a quantity of the different markets; or (e) a metric based on a total quantity of the advertising spots divided by a total quantity of the different markets” Wolinksy discloses (¶0044) that the selection element 904 allows a user to select one or more DMAs in which the airtime is to be reserved; the booking agent also selects number of spots via a selection element 908 to book time frames, such as week(s), during which the airtime is to be booked using selection element 910 associated with the DMA as represented in Figs. 9-10; (¶0041) the management of the airtime is performed through a contractual relationship between the national network service provider and television network local affiliates to manage airtime for retailer local affiliates in specific designated market areas; (¶0028, ¶0032) the retailer local affiliates and/or out-of-home television network manager can let the market determine the value of the in-store television network airtime amongst the television network local affiliates.
Regarding claim 17, “The system of claim 13, wherein the at least one graphical interface is configured to display a third graphic configured to indicate at least one of a plurality of time schedule settings” Wolinsky discloses (¶0044) that the booking agent selects number of spots via a selection element 908 to book time frames, such as week(s), during which the airtime is to be booked using selection element 910 as represented in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 18, “The system of claim 17, wherein the at least one graphical interface is configured to display a fourth graphic configured to indicate at least one of a plurality of spot frequency settings” Wolinsky discloses (¶0044) that the booking agent selects number of spots via a selection element 908 to book time frames, such as week(s), during which the airtime is to be booked using selection element 910 as represented in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection similar to claim 13.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolinsky in view of Sherwin, and further in view of US PG Pub 2012/0265619 to Patnode (“Patnode”).
Regarding claim 1, “A method to electronically control graphics related to one or more advertising goals, wherein the method comprises: executing a plurality of computer-readable instructions to direct one or more processors to perform a plurality of steps” reads on the system/method for managing airtime on television network (abstract) disclosed by Wolinsky and represented in Fig. 9. Wolinsky further discloses (¶0028) that the computer software program is embodied on the storage executed on a computing system.
As to “wherein the steps comprise: generating at least one input graphical interface that is configured to display:…a second graphic configured to indicate at least one of a plurality of territorial spot distribution settings” Wolinsky discloses (¶0044) that the device is provided with the user interface which displays plurality of options where one of the selection elements allows a user to select one or more DMAs in which the airtime is to be reserved as represented in Fig. 9 (element 904).
As to “a third graphic configured to indicate at least one of a plurality of time schedule settings; a fourth graphic configured to indicate at least one of a plurality of spot frequency settings” Wolinsky discloses (¶0044) that the booking agent selects number of spots via a selection element 908 to book time frames, such as week(s), during which the airtime is to be booked using selection element 910 as represented in Fig. 9.
As to “in response to a second input, causing the second graphic to graphically represent one of the territorial spot distribution settings, wherein the represented territorial spot distribution setting indicates a mathematical relationship between: a quantity of advertising spots, wherein each of the advertising spots is designated for one of the impressions; and a quantity of a plurality of different markets within a territory, wherein a plurality of the advertising spots are available within a plurality of the markets” Wolinksy discloses (¶0044) that the selection element 904 allows a user to select one or more DMAs in which the airtime is to be reserved; the booking agent also selects number of spots via a selection element 908 to book time frames, such as week(s), during which the airtime is to be booked using selection element 910 associated with the DMA as represented in Figs. 9-10; (¶0041) the management of the airtime is performed through a contractual relationship between the national network service provider and television network local affiliates to manage airtime for retailer local affiliates in specific designated market areas.
Wolinsky meets all the limitations of the claim except “a first graphic configured to indicate at least one of a plurality of spot airtime length settings.” However, Sherwin discloses (¶0067) that the ad units are created by the system as the initial construct in support of a placement opportunity; the system operator is provided with New Ad unit user interface where the ad units are defined by duration setting as represented in Fig. 6 (element 78).
As to “in response to a first input, causing the first graphic to graphically represent one of the spot airtime length settings, wherein the represented spot airtime length setting indicates a spot time value, wherein the spot time value is desirable for one of a plurality of impressions of an advertisement” Sherwin discloses (¶0067, TABLE 1) that the ad unit is defined by the duration where ethe duration indicates the total duration of the ad unit where the system operator selects duration for the ad as represented in Fig. 6 (element 78).
As to “in response to a third input, causing the third graphic to graphically represent one of the time schedule settings, wherein the represented time schedule setting indicates at least one time period that begins on a start time of day and ends on an end time of day” Sherwin discloses (¶0067) that the system operator selects start data/time and end date/time for the ad unit where the ad unit becomes active for use on the start date/time and expire on the end data/time as represented in Fig. 6 (elements 88, 90). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wolinsky’s system by using spot airtime length setting and start/end time setting for the ads as taught by Sherwin in order to enable a provider of content with the ability to dynamically identify and customize advertisement placement opportunities for dynamic decisions, and distribute advertisement placement opportunities according to market, technical, and customer needs (Sherwin - ¶0009).
Combination of Wolinsky and Sherwin meets all the limitations of the claim except “in response to a fourth input, causing the fourth graphic to graphically represent one of the spot frequency settings, wherein the represented spot frequency setting indicates: at least one program time period related to at least one program, wherein the at least one program time period comprises a program time value that is greater than the spot time value; and at least one frequency value corresponding to how many of the impressions of the advertisement are to be published within the at least one program time period of the at least one program.” However, Patnode discloses (¶0047-¶0048) that the system displays time slot/schedule/program (program time period) available to display various ads where each time slot has a frequency associated with the ad which determines how often (or the number of times) the advertisement may be displayed as represented in Fig. 4 (elements 404, 406); (¶0036) the system determines display frequency, or how many times a particular advertisement is shown on the display screen during a predetermined period of time slot, such as over 1 hour, 8 hours or 12 hours; (¶0031, ¶0036, ¶0048) ads are displayed for seconds vs time slot are provided for period of hour(s) and based on this info, it is obvious that time slot has greater time period than the ads spot time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wolinsky and Sherwin’s systems by selecting ad spot frequency within the program/schedule time period as taught by Patnode in order to attract consumer attention and influence consumer purchasing decisions (Patnode - ¶0005).
Regarding claim 2, “The method of claim 1, wherein the first graphic comprises an airtime length selector” Sherwin discloses (¶0067) that the system operator is provided with New Ad unit user interface where the ad units are defined by duration setting of the ad as represented in Fig. 6 (element 78).
Regarding claim 3, “The method of claim 1, wherein the second graphic comprises a territorial spot distribution selector” Wolinsky discloses (¶0044) that the device is provided with the user interface which displays plurality of options where one of the selection elements allows a user to select one or more DMAs in which the airtime is to be reserved as represented in Fig. 9 (element 904).
Regarding claim 4, “The method of claim 1, wherein the third graphic comprises at least one time schedule selector” Wolinsky discloses (¶0044) that the booking agent selects number of spots via a selection element 908 to book time frames, such as week(s), during which the airtime is to be booked using selection element 910 as represented in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 5, “The method of claim 1, wherein the third graphic comprises a plurality of time schedule selectors, wherein: a first one of the time schedule selectors is associated with the at least one time period; a second one of the time schedule selectors is associated with an additional time period that begins on an additional start time of day and ends on an additional end time of day” Wolinksy discloses (¶0044) that the selection element 904 allows a user to select one or more DMAs in which the airtime is to be reserved; the booking agent also selects number of spots via a selection element 908 to book time frames, such as week(s), during which the airtime is to be booked using selection element 910 associated with the DMA as represented in Figs. 9-10, and Sherwin discloses (¶0067) that the system operator selects start data/time and end date/time for the ad unit where the ad unit becomes active for use on the start date/time and expire on the end data/time as represented in Fig. 6 (elements 88, 90).
Regarding claim 7, “The method of claim 1, wherein the fourth graphic comprises: a first spot frequency specifier associated with at least a first weekday, wherein the first spot frequency specifier is also associated with the at least one program time period; and a second spot frequency specifier associated with at least a second weekday that differs from the first weekday, wherein the second spot frequency specifier is also associated with the at least one additional program time period, which is one of identical to or different from the at least one program time period. a second one of the time schedule selectors is associated with at least a second weekday that that differs from the first weekday” Patnode discloses (¶0047-¶0048) that the system displays time slot/schedule/program (program time period) available to display various ads where different time slot has a frequency associated with the ad which determines how often (or the number of times) the advertisement may be displayed as represented in Fig. 4 (elements 404, 406); (¶0036) the system determines display frequency, or how many times a particular advertisement is shown on the display screen during a predetermined period of time slot, such as over 1 hour, 8 hours or 12 hours.
Regarding claim 8, “The method of claim 1, wherein the mathematical relationship specifies a designated quantitative distribution of the impressions across the different markets” Wolinksy discloses (¶0044) that the selection element 904 allows a user to select one or more DMAs in which the airtime is to be reserved; the booking agent also selects number of spots via a selection element 908 to book time frames, such as week(s), during which the airtime is to be booked using selection element 910 associated with the DMA as represented in Figs. 9-10; (¶0041) the management of the airtime is performed through a contractual relationship between the national network service provider and television network local affiliates to manage airtime for retailer local affiliates in specific designated market areas.
Regarding claim 9, “The method of claim 1, wherein the mathematical relationship comprises a ratio of: (a) a total quantity of the advertising spots; to (b) the quantity of the different markets” Wolinksy discloses (¶0044) that the selection element 904 allows a user to select one or more DMAs in which the airtime is to be reserved; the booking agent also selects number of spots via a selection element 908 to book time frames, such as week(s), during which the airtime is to be booked using selection element 910 associated with the DMA as represented in Figs. 9-10; (¶0041) the management of the airtime is performed through a contractual relationship between the national network service provider and television network local affiliates to manage airtime for retailer local affiliates in specific designated market areas.
Regarding claim 10, “The method of claim 1, wherein the mathematical relationship comprises a value of advertising spots per market” Wolinsky discloses (¶0028, ¶0032) that the retailer local affiliates and/or out-of-home television network manager can let the market determine the value of the in-store television network airtime amongst the television network local affiliates.
Regarding claim 11, “The method of claim 1, wherein the mathematical relationship comprises a value of impressions per market” Wolinsky discloses (¶0028, ¶0032) that from the compensation metric, the television network local affiliate may use the number of impressions determined from the media metrics of the television network to determine how to either set a price for resale of the airtime or how to determine compensation for the under-delivery of impressions that an advertiser is entitled.
Regarding claim 12, “The method of claim 1, wherein the mathematical relationship comprises one of: (a) an average value that is determined based on a plurality of factors, wherein the factors comprise: (i) a total quantity of the advertising spots available in all of the different markets; and (ii) a quantity of the different markets; or (b) a metric based on a total quantity of the advertising spots divided by a total quantity of the different markets” Wolinsky discloses (¶0031) that the total number of ad slots are divided between national and local markets.
Regarding claim 19, “The system of claim 18, wherein the steps comprise: in response to a third input, causing the third graphic to graphically represent one of the time schedule settings, wherein the represented time schedule setting indicates at least one time period that begins on a start time of day and ends on an end time of day” Sherwin discloses (¶0067) that the system operator selects start data/time and end date/time for the ad unit where the ad unit becomes active for use on the start date/time and expire on the end data/time as represented in Fig. 6 (elements 88, 90).
Combination of Wolinsky and Sherwin meets all the limitations of the claim except “in response to a fourth input, causing the fourth graphic to graphically represent one of the spot frequency settings, wherein the represented spot frequency setting indicates: at least one program time period related to at least one program, wherein the at least one program time period comprises a program time value that is greater than the spot time value; and at least one frequency value corresponding to how many of the impressions of the advertisement are to be published within the at least one program time period of the at least one program.” However, Patnode discloses (¶0047-¶0048) that the system displays time slot/schedule/program (program time period) available to display various ads where each time slot has a frequency associated with the ad which determines how often (or the number of times) the advertisement may be displayed as represented in Fig. 4 (elements 404, 406); (¶0036) the system determines display frequency, or how many times a particular advertisement is shown on the display screen during a predetermined period of time slot, such as over 1 hour, 8 hours or 12 hours; (¶0031, ¶0036, ¶0048) ads are displayed for seconds vs time slot are provided for period of hour(s) and based on this info, it is obvious that time slot has greater time period than the ads spot time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wolinsky and Sherwin’s systems by selecting ad spot frequency within the program/schedule time period as taught by Patnode in order to attract consumer attention and influence consumer purchasing decisions (Patnode - ¶0005).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolinsky in view of Sherwin and Patnode, and further in view of US PG Pub 2011/0161162 to Ketchum (“Ketchum”).
Regarding claim 6, combination of Wolinsky, Sherwin, and Patnode meets all the limitations of the claim except “The method of claim 5, wherein the third graphic comprises: a first percentage indicator that is associated with the first time schedule selector, wherein the first percentage indicator corresponds to a first percentage of the impressions; and a second percentage indicator that is associated with the second time schedule selector, wherein the second percentage indicator corresponds to a second percentage of the impressions.” However, Ketchum discloses (¶0070-¶0071) that the advertiser inputs a percentage of overall impressions for different days of the week and/or different time of the day; for example by placing 14% of the inventory on each of the weekdays and 15% of the inventory on Saturday and Sunday as represented in Fig. 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wolinsky, Sherwin, and Patnode’s systems by selecting percentage indicators that corresponds to a percentage of impression for different time schedules as taught by Ketchum so the advertiser can manipulate campaign settings such as reach, frequency, locations, tier distribution, days, and dayparts, to achieve that objective (Ketchum - ¶0002).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINKAL R CHOKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN T PENDLETON can be reached at (571)272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PINKAL R CHOKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425