Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e), was filed in this application after final rejection. since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 11-12 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on01/05/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-15 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “the claims are directed to patent- eligible subject matter under Step 2A -- Prong 2 because additional elements in the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, Applicant respectfully submits that the present case can be analogized to the PTAB case of Ex parte Johnson et al. (Appeal 2018-005266; Application Serial No. 14/193,219; October 17, 2019). In Johnson et al., the Board reversed a §101 rejection of a set of method claims directed to retrieving and modifying search results by comparing the case to DDR Holdings (DDRHoldings, LLCv Hotels. com, L.P., 773 F.3 d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and starting that the claims "solve the Internet related challenge . . . [of] a search engine promoting improperly submitted listings." Further, the Board asserted that "Like DDR Holdings, we determine that Appellant's computer implemented method (claim 1) provides a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." ... In particular, Appellant's claims solve the aforementioned "challenge particular to the Internet" as similarly considered by the court in DDR." Further, the Board stated that since a particular "Internet-centric problem" was identified, the claims integrated the exception into a practical application (page 1/ 4)”.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claims bear no similarity to the DDR Holdings decision, because the instant claim merely display one or more information data in the manner in which it is received, whereas the claims in DDR Holding describe how the user interface manipulates the data in such a way that rather than directed the user to page requested by the link as would normally occur in a networking environment, the invention changes the normal functioning of such networking environment and instead of sending the claim to a landing page of the link, the invention displays the landing page as part of the currently accessed domain. The instant invention does nothing that could even be remotely similar to the claims of DDR.
The claims in DDR, the claimed technology "overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events" by detecting suspicious network activity, generating reports of suspicious activity, and receiving and integrating the reports using one or more hierarchical monitors.
In DDR Holdings, the court found that the additional elements did amount to more than merely instructing that the abstract idea should be applied on the Internet. “ the additional elements" of the claims in the DDR decision (new networking protocol) provided the technological solution to a technological problem. In the instant case, there is no arrangement of devices which could be considered "additional elements" and no new networking protocol which could be considered an "additional element". The only additional elements in the instant case are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components which are merely used as tools to apply the abstract idea. As such, the office actions "apply it" characterization is entirely consistent with the December 5, 2025 guidance update to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the instant claims bear no similarity to the Ex parte Johnson et al., because the instant claims merely display one or more information data in the manner in which it is received, whereas the claims in Ex parte Johnson et al instead of the computer network operating in its normal, expected manner by sending the website visitor to the third party website that appears to be connected wit the clicked advertisement, the claimed system generates and directs the visitor to hybrid webpage that presents product information from the third -party and visual “look and feel” elemens from the host website. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-15 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “the present invention also relates to an "Internet-centric problem" of improving the search results provided to a user by including steps related to performing a search, where the claimed steps include the steps of: receiving from a user a search term; and providing the user with search results that include both a first answer derived using the LLM-based artificial intelligence and a second answer that is dynamically created using the first answer in combination with the campaign of the information provider. Thus, as in Ex parte Johnson et al., the present claims solve a particular "Internet-centric problem," and accordingly the claims integrate the exception into a practical application. The following cases also provide other examples where the Board has reversed § 101 rejections in claims directed to improving search results: 1. Ex parte Paris et al. (Appeal 2025-001701; Application Serial No. 17/891,793; October 29, 2025); 2. Ex parte Barger et al. (Appeal 2020-002642; Application Serial No. 15/010,141; August 2, 2021); and 3. In re Saimani et al. (Appeal 2018-003107; Application Serial No. 13/956,188; June 12, 2019). Accordingly, for at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of this § 101 rejection (page 2/4)”.
Examiner disagrees. Since, receiving from a user a search term; and providing the user with search results that include both a first answer derived using an algorithm and a second answer that is dynamically created using the first answer in combination with the campaign of the information provider re part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “computer device, processor, and Large Language model -based artificial intelligence”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied.
Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1-15 rejection under 35 USC § 103:
Applicant argues that “In the Office Action, the Examiner relied upon paragraphs [0111] and [0140] of the Spiegel et al. reference for the features related to the first and second answers of the search results. In response, Applicant notes that paragraph [0111] of the Spiegel et al. reference discloses an example in which the second answer is only provided after receiving additional input from the user. In particular, paragraph [0111] of the Spiegel et al. reference discloses an example in which the chatbot provides a first list of hotels (presumably the "first answer"), asks the user if they would like to see a promotion for a hotel, receives the user's input, and then provides a second answer based on the user's input. Thus, as this paragraph only describes providing the second answer after receiving the user's input, it cannot be relied upon as satisfying the following proposed new language: "wherein the second answer is provided without receiving additional input from the user after providing the first answer" (emphasis added). With regard to paragraph [0140] of the Spiegel et al. reference, this paragraph refers to Figure 4B, which describes a method in which there is a conversation between the user and a chatbot. Thus, each new "answer" is based on an input from the user. Accordingly, this paragraph also fails to satisfy the following proposed new language: "wherein the second answer is provided without receiving additional input from the user after providing the first answer" (emphasis added). Accordingly, as it has been shown that all of the features defined in amended independent Claims 1 and 12 are not disclosed or suggested in the cited references, withdrawal of this § 103 rejection is respectfully requested (page 3/ 4)”.
Examiner disagrees. Spiegel in at least paragraph 111 discloses the chatbot system 300 furthers a conversation with a user by knowing that user intent (e.g., if the user asks for good hotels in Cancun, the chatbot system 300 responds with: “Here is a list of hotels (first answer based on user input prompt). I also know of a good promotion for a hotel, would you like to see it? ( wherein the second answer is provided without receiving additional input from the user after providing the first answer ”). Spiegel in at least paragraph [0156] disclose In some examples, the skill modules 422 comprise a dynamic interactive platform ads module 424. The dynamic interactive platform ads module 424 provides relevant, targeted advertisements ( "wherein the second answer is provided without receiving additional input from the user after providing the first answer" users during a conversation ( (first answer based on user input prompt) . Spiegel also in at least [0160] discloses Dynamically inserting highly relevant ads at appropriate points in the conversation. [0161] Adapting ad creative elements like images, videos, audio to match conversation context. Further more, Spiegel also in at least [294] discloses The graphical user interface, presenting the modification performed by the transform system, may supply the user with additional interaction options. Such options may be based on the interface used to initiate the content capture and selection of a particular computer animation model (e.g., initiation from a content creator user interface).
As thus, the cited reference of Spiegel discloses the amended limitation and the claim rejection of claims 1-15 over the cited prior art under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1-10 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claim (s) 12-15 are directed to a machine (i.e. a system); claim (s) 11 is directed to a manufacture (i.e. a non transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “ providing, a conversational information management function to an information provider that desires to provide content to a user of a search service; conducting, a conversation between an algorithm based artificial intelligence and the information provider through the conversational information management function; and analyzing, the conversation and managing a campaign of the information provider, receiving, from the user, a search term to the search service, and providing to the user, search results based on the search term input from the user, and wherein the search results include a first answer and a second answer that is dynamically created using the first answer in combination with the campaign of the information provider ”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “computer device, processor, and Large Language model”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes). When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “computer device, processor, and Large Language model”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 47-49, 95-96); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 11-12.
The dependent claims 2-10, 13-15 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of : providing a function for registering a campaign-specific asset of the information provider (claims 2,13); comprises creating conversation contents to be provided to the information provider using at least two of the campaign of the information provider, a campaign-specific asset of the information provider, a campaign-specific prompt of the information provider, information collected from outside, and contents of the conversation through the artificial intelligence (claim 3, 14), wherein the asset includes at least one of a uniform resource locator (URL) related to the content that the information provider desires to provide, a title of the content, an identifier of the content, a category of the content, a multimedia related to the content, contents of the content, and contents of an article related to the conte(claim 4), wherein the prompt includes at least one of a phrase entered to be emphasized in relation to the content that the information provider desires to provide, a keyword entered to be emphasized in relation to the content that the information provider desires to provide, a tone of an information message to be included in the content, and a format of the information message (claim 5), wherein the campaign is created for each purpose for which the information provider desires (claim 6), creating a new campaign using at least one of an asset included in a previously created campaign of the information provider and information collected from outside in relation to the information provider, modifying a prompt of the information provider registered to a previously created campaign of the information provider based on contents of the conversation, registering a new prompt to a previously created campaign of the information provider based on contents of the conversation (claims 7-9 and 15); wherein the content to be provided to the user through the search service is dynamically created at a search point in time of the user using an asset and a prompt of the information provider registered to a corresponding campaign and included in search results (claim 10), which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims 1,11-12.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Bent III, US Pub No: 2024/0126997 A1 in view of Spiegel et al, US Pub No: 2024/0249318 A1.
Claims 1,11-12:
Bent discloses:
providing, by the at least one processor, a conversational information management function to an information provider that desires to provide content to a user of a search service ( paragraph 55 ( user session data 124A can include a current search term and/or other user input received within a threshold time of the current session. For example, a user can submit a first search and five minutes later submit a second search. The proximity of the first search and second search in time can be user context data 124B. Thus, the cited rejection of claims 1-15 over the cited reference is maintained);
conducting, by the at least one processor, a conversation between large language model (LLM)-based artificial intelligence and the information provider through the conversational information management function (see at least paragraph 7 (the operations include transmitting to the conversation campaign assistant interface, the response data structure comprising the natural language response to be provided for display to a user via the conversational campaign assistant interface); paragraph 130 ( the initial user interface can include a content assistant component. The content assistant component can be configured to obtain user input, and in response, generate suggested content (e.g., headlines, descriptions, advertisements, videos, images, sound bites, etc.). In some implementations, the content assistant component can include one or more input fields. For example, the content assistant component can include a set number of predetermined input fields. In some implementations the content assistant component can include a plurality of progressively displayed input fields. In some implementations, the content assistant component can be configured to provide a conversational interface);
analyzing, by the at least one processor, the conversation managing a campaign of the information provider (see at least paragraph 193 (a user can ask for a recommendation of settings for bidding strategies to optimize spending or return on content spending (e.g., return on advertising spending). The settings can be tailored to the context of the user session. For instance, the recommendations can be based on prior input received in the conversation, information gathered from a website associated with the user sessions, or other contextual information); paragraph 194 (A content campaign can include a plurality of parameters. The parameters can include, for example a desired audience (e.g., targeting), an amount to pay for content being displayed and measures of performance (e.g., bidding), or the content that can be displayed (e.g., creatives); paragraph 195 ( The content assistant component can be trained to provide recommendations to improve computing resource allocation. For instance, the content assistant component can be trained to adjust or provide recommendations for adjusting various parameters associated with content campaigns to decrease redundant data transmission. Additionally, improvements in performance can occur. For instance, the content assistant component can obtain information on performance metrics, determine an attribution of a change in the metrics to the change in parameters or an external cause, and provide recommendations or automatically adjusting parameters across an organization's content campaigns);
receiving by the at least one processor, from the user, a search term to the search service ( paragraph 55 discloses user session data 124A can include a current search term and/or other user input received within a threshold time of the current session. For example, a user can submit a first search and five minutes later submit a second search. The proximity of the first search and second search in time can be user context data 124B);
Bent does not specifically disclose, but Spiegel however discloses:
providing, by the at least one processor, to the user, search results based on the search term input from the user, and wherein the search results include a first answer derived using the LLM- based artificial intelligence and a second answer that is dynamically created using the first answer in combination with the campaign of the information provider; wherein the second answer is provided without receiving additional input from the user after providing the first answer (see at least paragraph 111 (the information that the chatbot system 300 extracts from conversations is focused on the user intent. In addition, the chatbot system 300 furthers a conversation with a user by knowing that user intent (e.g., if the user asks for good hotels in Cancun, the chatbot system 300 responds with: “Here is a list of hotels (first answer based on user input prompt). I also know of a good promotion for a hotel, would you like to see it? ( wherein the second answer is provided without receiving additional input from the user after providing the first answer ”)This provides for the user intent being extracted from the user, matching the intent to possible ads, and embedding that knowledge into a response. In some examples, the chatbot system 300 augments response with a “popular with friends” list); paragraph 140 ( the output selector component 342 may decide a textual response is most fitting for a factual question (first answer based on user input prompt), while an ad for a product or service ( wherein the second answer is provided without receiving additional input from the user after providing the first answer ”) may be most relevant for a commercial query. The output selector component 342 chooses among the available response types to provide the user with the most useful, tailored information. By supporting multiple response formats like text, links, and ads, the chatbot system 300 can dynamically serve the user with the most fitting type of reply for each conversation turn. This allows the chatbot system 300 to have a diverse, engaging dialogue with the user);
paragraph 156 disclose In some examples, the skill modules 422 comprise a dynamic interactive platform ads module 424. The dynamic interactive platform ads module 424 provides relevant, targeted advertisements ( "wherein the second answer is provided without receiving additional input from the user after providing the first answer" users during a conversation ( (first answer based on user input prompt) ; paragraph 160 Dynamically inserting highly relevant ads at appropriate points in the conversation; paragraph 161 Adapting ad creative elements like images, videos, audio to match conversation context; paragraph 294 (The graphical user interface, presenting the modification performed by the transform system, may supply the user with additional interaction options. Such options may be based on the interface used to initiate the content capture and selection of a particular computer animation model (e.g., initiation from a content creator user interface);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Bent with the teaching of Spiegel’s system enables personalized and relevant advertising through conversational interaction based on user intent with the motivation to visually capture user attention of products or service and hence increase product awareness and marketability as taught by Spiegel over that of Bent.
Claims 2 and 13:
The combination of Bent/ Spiegel discloses the limitations as shown above.
Bent further discloses:
wherein the providing of the conversational information management function comprises providing a function for registering a campaign-specific asset of the information provider through the conversational information management function (see at least paragraphs 108-118; paragraph 108 ( the computing system can obtain user input responsive to display of the message. For example, the message displayed can state “Could you please describe the product or service you want to advertise and how it helps your potential customers?”. For example, a user can provide information about their business. A user could provide the following as input: “We are a small puppy supply company in Northern Massachusetts. We are called PuppyThings. We sell dog kibbles, snacks, toys, and anything for puppies. Great value, high quality products. We open 9-5 and offer free refunds and ship to all 50 states)”;
Claims 3, 14:
The combination of Bent/ Spiegel discloses the limitations as shown above.
Bent further discloses:
wherein the conducting of the conversation comprises creating conversation contents to be provided to the information provider using at least two of the campaign of the information provider, a campaign-specific asset of the information provider, a campaign-specific prompt of the information provider, information collected from outside, and contents of the conversation through the artificial intelligence (see at least paragraph 151 (a first free-form text input field 805 can include a prompt for a user to “describe the product or service you want to advertise.” The computing system can obtain data indicative of user input into the free-form text input field 805. The free-form text input can be natural language input by the user. A second free-form text input field 810 can include a prompt for a user to “explain what makes your product or service unique.” The computing system can obtain data indicative of user input into the free-form text input field 810. A third free-form text input field 815 can include a prompt for a user to “what URL should this ad link to?” In some implementations, the content generated can be an advertisement. For example, a user can provide a uniform resource locator (URL) that directs a user to a website associated with the user. For example, the user can be associated with a business called Puppy Things. The URL associated with the business can be http://www.puppythings.com);
Claim 4:
The combination of Bent/ Spiegel discloses the limitations as shown above.
Bent further discloses:
wherein the asset includes at least one of a uniform resource locator (URL) related to the content that the information provider desires to provide, a title of the content, an identifier of the content, a category of the content, a multimedia related to the content, contents of the content, and contents of an article related to the content ( see at least paragraph 151 (a first free-form text input field 805 can include a prompt for a user to “describe the product or service you want to advertise.” The computing system can obtain data indicative of user input into the free-form text input field 805. The free-form text input can be natural language input by the user. A second free-form text input field 810 can include a prompt for a user to “explain what makes your product or service unique.” The computing system can obtain data indicative of user input into the free-form text input field 810. A third free-form text input field 815 can include a prompt for a user to “what URL should this ad link to?” In some implementations, the content generated can be an advertisement. For example, a user can provide a uniform resource locator (URL) that directs a user to a website associated with the user. For example, the user can be associated with a business called Puppy Things. The URL associated with the business can be http://www.puppythings.com);
Claim 5:
The combination of Bent/ Spiegel discloses the limitations as shown above.
Bent further discloses:
wherein the prompt includes at least one of a phrase entered to be emphasized in relation to the content that the information provider desires to provide, a keyword entered to be emphasized in relation to the content that the information provider desires to provide, a tone of an information message to be included in the content, and a format of the information message (see at least paragraph 172 (At 1205 the system can determine if user input has been obtained. If user input has been obtained, the system can proceed to 1210. At 1210, the content assistant can obtain one or more keyword recommendations. At 1215, content assistant can generate suggested content);
Claim 6:
The combination of Bent/ Spiegel discloses the limitations as shown above.
Bent further discloses:
wherein the campaign is created for each purpose for which the information provider desires to provide the content and includes an asset and a prompt for dynamically creating the content of corresponding purpose at a search point in time (see at least paragraph 55 (user session data 124A can include a current search term and/or other user input received within a threshold time of the current session. For example, a user can submit a first search and five minutes later submit a second search. The proximity of the first search and second search in time can be user context data 124B); paragraph 195 (the content assistant component can obtain information on performance metrics, determine an attribution of a change in the metrics to the change in parameters or an external cause, and provide recommendations or automatically adjusting parameters across an organization's content campaigns) ; paragraph 113 (Turning to FIG. 10 for example, the computing system can generate the following message: “We created the ad based on your information: 10 keywords, 5 headlines, 2 descriptions. Please let me know if you want to modify it.” For example, the computing system can generate following as suggested headlines: anything your puppy needs, kibbles, snacks and toys for your puppy, high quality products for puppy, open 9-5 and free refunds, and ship to all states. The computing system can generate the following as suggested descriptions: puppy supply, great value, high quality, free shipping. Shop today at puppythings.com and/or welcome your new puppy with everything they need. Kibbles, snacks, toys, & more. All at puppythings.com. The computing system can determine the following targeting keywords: puppy supply, dog kibble, dog treats, etc.) ;
Claims 7-9, 15:
The combination of Bent/ Spiegel discloses the limitations as shown above.
Bent further discloses:
wherein the managing of the campaign comprises creating a new campaign using at least one of an asset included in a previously created campaign of the information provider and information collected from outside in relation to the information provider;
wherein the managing of the campaign comprises modifying a prompt of the information provider registered to a previously created campaign of the information provider based on contents of the conversation;
wherein the managing of the campaign comprises registering a new prompt to a previously created campaign of the information provider based on contents of the conversation;
See at least paragraphs 52, 55,113, 187, 208, paragraph 52 (the computing system can cause the one or more suggested content items to be retrieved, generated, and/or presented to a user via a user interface of a device (e.g., user device). User context data 124B can include context of prior sessions and/or historical session data. User context data can include a location, a time, prior campaigns, prior content items used, device used, type of construction workflow used, etc. User account data 124C can include data associated with a user account (e.g., login, device identifier, user identifier); paragraph 113 (Turning to FIG. 10 for example, the computing system can generate the following message: “We created the ad based on your information: 10 keywords, 5 headlines, 2 descriptions. Please let me know if you want to modify it.” For example, the computing system can generate following as suggested headlines: anything your puppy needs, kibbles, snacks and toys for your puppy, high quality products for puppy, open 9-5 and free refunds, and ship to all states. The computing system can generate the following as suggested descriptions: puppy supply, great value, high quality, free shipping. Shop today at puppythings.com and/or welcome your new puppy with everything they need. Kibbles, snacks, toys, & more. All at puppythings.com. The computing system can determine the following targeting keywords: puppy supply, dog kibble, dog treats, etc.); paragraph 208 (The action component can include a bidding strategy model. The bidding strategy model can provide personalized recommendations for allocation of spend based on previous performance. The previous performance can be associated with a specific return user and based on historical data. Additionally, or alternatively, the bidding strategy model can obtain additional user input to learn more about the user's associated business, customer base, or other baseline knowledge to be used in generating recommendations);
Claim 10:
The combination of Bent/ Spiegel discloses the limitations as shown above.
Bent further discloses:
wherein the content to be provided to the user through the search service is dynamically created at a search point in time of the user using an asset and a prompt of the information provider registered to a corresponding campaign and included in search results (paragraph 55( user session data 124A can include a current search term and/or other user input received within a threshold time of the current session. For example, a user can submit a first search and five minutes later submit a second search. The proximity of the first search and second search in time can be user context data 124B); paragraph 113 (Turning to FIG. 10 for example, the computing system can generate the following message: “We created the ad based on your information: 10 keywords, 5 headlines, 2 descriptions. Please let me know if you want to modify it.” For example, the computing system can generate following as suggested headlines: anything your puppy needs, kibbles, snacks and toys for your puppy, high quality products for puppy, open 9-5 and free refunds, and ship to all states. The computing system can generate the following as suggested descriptions: puppy supply, great value, high quality, free shipping. Shop today at puppythings.com and/or welcome your new puppy with everything they need. Kibbles, snacks, toys, & more. All at puppythings.com. The computing system can determine the following targeting keywords: puppy supply, dog kibble, dog treats, etc.) ;
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Schler et al, US Pub No: 20250390914 A1, teaches systems and method for efficiently and accurately generating a digital media plan
Ma et al, US Pub No: 2019/0130463 A1, teaches dynamically modifying digital content distribution campaigns based on triggering conditions and actions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights