DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed 9/24/2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 and 15-22 are pending.
Claims 1-12 and 15-22 have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-6, 10-11, 12, 15-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schobeiri, et al. (US 2021/0090126) (“Schobeiri”) in view of Ren, et al. (US 11,403,420) (“Ren”).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 22 Schobeiri discloses a computer-implemented method, a system comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising the method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium carrying instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising the method, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a publisher server of a publisher and for a client device of a user, a content request that requests content of the publisher for presentation to the user, the content request comprising a set of data that includes user data (Schobeiri ¶¶ 125-126);
providing, by the publisher server, the set of data to a secure digital distribution system configured to (i) decrypt the encrypted user data to obtain cleartext user data and (ii) select candidate digital components based on the user data (Schobeiri ¶¶ 66, 126-130);
receiving, by the publisher server, candidate digital component data for each of one or more candidate digital components, wherein the candidate digital component data for each candidate digital component comprises digital component data that identifies the candidate digital component (Schobeiri Figure 9, Block 920; ¶¶ 35, 81-82, 130);
selecting, by the publisher server, a given digital component for presentation to the user from a set of candidate digital components comprising (i) the one or more candidate digital components for which digital component data is received from the secure distribution system and (ii) candidate digital components of the publisher (Schobeiri ¶¶ 35, 81-82, 130);
providing, to the client device, selected digital component data identifying the given digital component (Schobeiri Figure 9, Block 924; ¶¶ 35, 81-82, 130).
Schobeiri does not specifically disclose that the user data included in the content request is encrypted user data, that the publisher server receives the candidate digital component data from the secure distribution system, that the candidate digital component data comprises a selection parameter for use in a digital component selection process, and that the digital component data is encrypted.
Ren discloses that the user data included in the content request is encrypted user data (Ren 27:6-37), that the publisher server receives the candidate digital component data from the secure distribution system (Ren 27:43-61), that the candidate digital component data comprises an additional data item in addition to the digital component data (Ren 28:40-47), and that the digital component data is encrypted (Ren 28:16-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Schobeiri to include the user data included in the content request being encrypted user data, the publisher server receiving the candidate digital component data from the secure distribution system, the candidate digital component data comprising an additional data item in addition to the digital component data, and that the digital component data is encrypted, as disclosed in Ren, in order to provide greater user privacy while allowing for personalized advertisements (Ren 1:41-67)
Schobeiri in view of Ren does not specifically disclose that the additional data item included in the candidate digital component data is a selection parameter for use in a digital component selection process.
However, this limitation only describes a characteristic of the data included in the candidate digital component data, and this characteristic is not processed or executed to cause a computer to carry out any functionality. Therefore, this limitation is nonfunctional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Schobeiri in view of Ren to include any type of additional data in the candidate digital component data, because the subjective interpretation of the data does not affect the claimed functionality.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Schobeiri discloses that whenever the given digital component is a candidate digital component of the candidate digital components of the publisher, the selected digital component data comprises the given digital component or a reference to a network location from which the given digital component is stored for downloading to client devices (Schobeiri ¶¶ 49, 82).
Schobeiri does not specifically disclose whenever the given digital component is a candidate digital component of the one or more candidate digital components for which digital component data is received from the secure distribution system, the selected digital component data comprises the encrypted digital component data that identifies the candidate digital component.
Ren discloses that whenever the given digital component is a candidate digital component of the one or more candidate digital components for which digital component data is received from the secure distribution system, the selected digital component data comprises the encrypted digital component data that identifies the candidate digital component (Ren 28:16-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Schobeiri to include that whenever the given digital component is a candidate digital component of the one or more candidate digital components for which digital component data is received from the secure distribution system, the selected digital component data comprises the encrypted digital component data that identifies the candidate digital component, as disclosed in Ren, in order to provide greater user privacy while allowing for personalized advertisements (Ren 1:41-67).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Ren discloses the computer-implemented method of any preceding claim 1, wherein the encrypted digital component data for each candidate digital component comprises cleartext digital component data that is encrypted using an encryption key of the client device (Ren 28:34-47).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Ren discloses that the cleartext digital component data comprises the digital component (Ren 28:34-47).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Schobeiri in view of Ren does not specifically disclose that the cleartext digital component data comprises a web bundle that includes one or more resources for displaying the digital component.
However, this limitation only describes a characteristic of the cleartext digital component data, and this characteristic is not processed or executed to cause a computer to carry out any functionality. Therefore, this limitation is nonfunctional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Schobeiri in view of Ren to include any type of cleartext digital component data, because the subjective interpretation of the data does not affect the claimed functionality.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Schobeiri discloses the computer-implemented that the cleartext digital component data comprises data identifying, as the given digital component, a video digital component (Schobeiri ¶¶ 35, 81-82, 130).
Regarding claim 10, Ren discloses that the video digital component is encrypted using a digital rights management technique and an operating system of the client device is configured to decrypt the video digital component for display to the user (Ren 29:39-60).
Regarding claim 11, Schobeiri in view of Ren does not specifically disclose that the set of data comprises contextual data describing an environment in which the one or more digital components will be presented.
However, this limitation only describes a characteristic of the set of data, and this characteristic is not processed or executed to cause a computer to carry out any functionality. Therefore, this limitation is nonfunctional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Schobeiri in view of Ren to include any type of information in the set of data, because the subjective interpretation of the data does not affect the claimed functionality.
Statement Regarding Prior Art for Claims 7-9 and 20-21
Regarding claims 7-9 and 20-21, Schobeiri discloses providing, to the client device, selected digital component data identifying the given digital component, which comprises providing the selected digital component data to an application (Schobeiri Figure 9, Block 924; ¶¶ 35, 81-82, 130). However, Schobeiri do not disclose the specific features of claims 7 and 20 which involves providing the selected digital component data to an application configured to request a playlist comprising the video digital component and video content of the publisher from one or more content delivery networks, as well as the features of claims 8 and 21 in which the application is configured to request the playlist from a secure content delivery network that is configured to obtain the video content of the publisher from an unverified content delivery network and to generate the playlist by stitching the video digital component with the video content of the publisher, as well as a features of claim 9 in which the application is configured to request the playlist from an unverified content delivery network that is configured to obtain the video digital component from a secure content delivery network and to generate the playlist by stitching the video digital component with the video content of the publisher.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A. Nilforoush whose telephone number is (571)270-5298. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-7pm.
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, John W. Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/Mohammad A. Nilforoush/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights