DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a FIRST, NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION for Application #18/885,995, filed on 09/16/2024, and a Preliminary Amendment filed on 04/28/2025. This application is a Continuation of Application #15/043,493, filed on 02/12/2016.
Claims 1-21 are now pending and have been examined.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, in the instant case, independent claims 1, 11, 18, and 19 are directed towards methods. A method, or process, is a statutory category for patentability.
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner now determines if the claims recite an abstract idea. The claims recite “provide audience information based at least in part on said communications including audience composition of second non-addressable asset delivery opportunities, obtaining…for at least one of the addressable asset opportunities, demographic information for potential audience members, selecting for the at least one of the addressable asset delivery opportunities at least first and second assets with first and second targeting constraints, respectively, receiving reports concerning delivery of the first and second assets in the at least one of the addressable asset delivery opportunities, and developing audience composition information estimates using the reports and targeting constraints.” The claims recite an abstract idea, namely “certain methods of organizing human activity,” specifically “advertising.” An advertising or marketing agency routinely identifies audiences and their parameters, targets advertisements to audiences, gathers statistics and feedback, and reviews and analyzes the data in order to optimize the ad campaigns. Providing of audience information, obtaining from third-party sources such as Nielsen Ratings demographic information for audiences, selecting ads and content for targeting to the audience, initiating the campaign, receiving reports and other data regarding the campaign, and developing further audience information based on the reports is all of what is routinely done in campaign management in such as a marketing or ad agency. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, namely “advertising.” The claims secondarily also recite a mental process. A human operator at such as an advertising or marketing agency could as part of a mental process identify audiences and their parameters, select advertisement and content for a campaign for specific audiences, and analyze statistics and feedback in order to make judgments or decisions for optimizing the ad campaigns. Therefore, claims secondarily recite a mental process.
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now consider if the claims, either individually or as a whole ordered combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims include “a communications network,” “providing an addressable asset delivery system,” “ a communications processing module,” and “equipment devices of users.” However, these elements are considered generic recitations of technical elements. These components are recited at a high level of generality and are not directed to a particular machine or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The components are being used as tools to automate the abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements are not considered an integrating of the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims also include “transmit first addressable assets to audience members in connection with first addressable asset delivery opportunities of said communications network” and “delivering the first and second assets in connection with the at least one of the addressable asset delivery opportunities.” These additional elements are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (ii) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network” citing Symantec and TLI Communications and “sending messages over a network” citing buySAFE v Google). Therefore, these additional elements are not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements also include “processing communications between a platform of said addressable asset delivery system and user equipment devices of users related to said first, addressable asset delivery opportunity.” This additional element is considered receiving and processing of data which is a generic recitation of a technical element and is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now consider if the claims, either individually or as a whole ordered combination, include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims include one or more of an improvement to another technology, and improvement to the technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. This would include elements that are more than what is considered to be “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the related arts. The claims include “a communications network,” “providing an addressable asset delivery system,” “a communications processing module,” and “equipment devices of users.” However, these elements are considered generic recitations of technical elements. These components are recited at a high level of generality and are not directed to a particular machine or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The components are being used as tools to automate the abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims also include “transmit first addressable assets to audience members in connection with first addressable asset delivery opportunities of said communications network” and “delivering the first and second assets in connection with the at least one of the addressable asset delivery opportunities.” These additional elements are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (ii) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network” citing Symantec and TLI Communications and “sending messages over a network” citing buySAFE v Google). Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more. The additional elements also include “processing communications between a platform of said addressable asset delivery system and user equipment devices of users related to said first, addressable asset delivery opportunity.” This additional element is considered receiving and processing of data which is a generic recitation of a technical element and is recited at a high level of generality. Further, the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (i-iv) lists receiving, processing, and storage of data as an example of conventional computer functioning and the examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to process communications over a communications network between user devices and a system. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more.
When considered as an ordered combination, the examiner sees only the logical steps necessary to carry out the abstract idea, namely providing of audience information, obtaining from third-party sources demographic information for audiences, selecting ads and content for targeting to the audience, initiating the campaign, receiving reports and other data regarding the campaign, and developing further audience information based on the reports. The examiner does not see anything in the combination of elements that would be sufficient to be considered “significantly more" than what is well-understood and conventional in the computer and related arts. So, the consideration of the ordered combination does not change the status of the claims as "not having significantly more than the abstract idea itself."
When considering the dependent claims, claim 2 is considered part of the abstract idea as “providing,” absent further detail, and the other steps as already discussed above are considered part of the advertising campaign service. Claims 3-10 are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and not significantly more as the type of audience information does not change the analysis. Claim 20 is considered part of the abstract idea, as obtaining information, regardless of the described source, is considered part of “advertising” or a mental process, as the obtaining itself does not have any kind of technical detail or aspect. Claim 21 is considered part of the abstract idea, as conducting an auction for targeted advertising is considered part of the abstract idea of “advertising.” The transmittal step is considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (ii) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network” citing Symantec and TLI Communications and “sending messages over a network” citing buySAFE v Google). The dependent claims mirror those already discussed above.
Therefore, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf) and more recently https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/12/16/2014-29414/2014-interim-guidance-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldering, Patent No. 7,062,510 B1 in view of in view of Morales, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0181267 A1 and in further view of Shah, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0187478 A1.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Eldering teaches:
A method…… comprising:
providing an addressable asset delivery system for said communications network, said addressable asset delivery system associated with an addressable asset processing module (see at least Column 8, lines 25-61 in which target audience information for an asset is received from an advertiser and that is matched to user devices via a platform for connecting with and serving ads to television audiences)
( claim 11 only) operating a targeting module to receive asset delivery information including, for each delivered asset of multiple delivered assets: 1) audience information concerning classification parameters of an audience that received the delivered asset (see at least Column 8, lines 25-61 in which target audience information for an asset is received from an advertiser and that is matched to user devices via a platform for connecting with and serving ads to television audiences) and 2) audience engagement information concerning one of levels of interest and conversions for the audience that received the delivered asset device (see Column 9, lines 52-65, Column 10, lines 47-59, and Column 11, line 54-Column 12, line 8)
wherein the addressable asset processing module
is operative to transmit first addressable assets to audience members in connection with first addressable asset delivery opportunities of said communications network and includes a communications processing module for processing communications between a platform of said addressable asset delivery system and user equipment devices of users of said communications network related to said first, addressable asset delivery opportunity (see at least Column 8, lines 25-61 in which target audience information for an asset is received from an advertiser and that is matched to user devices via a platform for connecting with and serving ads to television audiences)
obtaining for at least one of the addressable asset delivery opportunities, demographic information for potential audience members (see Figures 2A-2C, 3A, and 6A-7, and Column 10, lines 47-67, Column 11, line 53-Column 12, line 8, and Column 15, line 4-Column 16, line 38)
selecting for the at least one of the addressable asset delivery opportunities at least first and second assets with first and second targeting constraints, respectively (see Column 11, line 54-Column 12, line 47; the examiner notes that while the reference does not use the terms “first and second,” the claim is written broadly and it is clear that the ad targeting and serving in the reference can be for multiple ads to audiences with multiple sets of targeting constraints)
delivering the first and second assets in connection with the at least one of the addressable asset delivery opportunities (see Column 8, line 45-Column 9, line 16 and claims 93-95)
receiving reports concerning delivery of the first and second assets in the at least one of the addressable asset delivery opportunities (see such as Abstract in which analysis of recorded responses to the advertisements, which inherently means the responses would need to be reported in some manner, is used to optimize the targeting and customization of the advertisements to the audiences)
(claim 19 only) operating said addressable asset delivery system to generate audience information independent of delivery of any assets (see Figures 2A-2C, 3A, and 6A-7, and Column 10, lines 47-67, Column 11, line 53-Column 12, line 8, and Column 15, line 4-Column 16, line 38 in which demographic, interest, and other audience information is at least partially determined even prior to any asset delivery)
Eldering, however, does not appear to specify:
provides audience information, based on at least in part on said communications, including audience composition of second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities
obtaining from a third-party database…demographic information
Morales teaches:
provides audience information, based on at least in part on said communications, including audience composition of second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities (see [0014]-[0020], [0028], [0040], and [0044] in which sampled audience data from measured audiences such as set-top boxes that include viewership size and composition such as demographics is then used to estimate non-measured larger audience size and composition; see also [0003] which discusses how ratings companies extrapolate measured data to estimate size and composition of larger non-measurable audiences)
obtaining from a third-party database…demographic information (see at least [0003] and [0016])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Morales with Eldering because Eldering already teaches a similar type matching and targeting for addressable assets watching a television show, and targeting non-addressable assets would allow for an advertiser to place ads in a more general television program while able to meet their targeting goals, and Eldering already teachers inferred demographics, and demographics obtained from a third party would ensure greater accuracy and reserve use of resources that otherwise would need to be dedicated to demographic inference.
Eldering and Morales, however, does not appear to specify:
developing audience composition information estimates using the reports and targeting constraints
Shah teaches:
developing audience composition information estimates using the reports and targeting constraints (see at least [0033]-[0035], [0049]-[0052], and [0057]-[0063] in which audience composition estimates are developed using the impression report data and the targeting parameter information)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Shah with Eldering and Morales because Eldering already teaches matching and targeting for addressable assets and using the response data to update demographic vectors, and audience composition estimates developed using the impression report data and the targeting parameter information would allow for more refined targeting with better sense of audience composition using actual reported result data.
** The examiner notes that the claim limitation is very broad, as what the “audience composition information” even is, how it is “developed,” and how the reports and constraints are “used” in the developing is given no detail at all in the claims. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is taken in examination of the claim.**
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 1
Eldering further teaches:
wherein said audience information is based on communications between said platform of said addressable asset delivery system and said user devices, each said communication relating to characterizing a current audience of a given user equipment device (see Column 9, lines 52-65, Column 10, lines 47-59, and Column 11, line 54-Column 12, line 8)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 3
Eldering further teaches:
wherein said audience information reflects one or more classification parameters of said current audience (see Column 6, lines 1-25, Column 9, lines 52-65, Column 10, lines 47-59, and Column 11, line 54-Column 12, line 8)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 4
Eldering further teaches:
wherein said audience information reflects a suitability of a potential asset for delivery to said current audience (see Column 5, lines 31-38 and Column 6, lines 5-20)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 1
Eldering further teaches:
wherein said audience information includes level of interest information for audiences of said first, addressable assets (see at least Column 6, lines 1-5, Column 9, lines 52-65, Column 10, lines 47-59, and Column 11, line 54-Column 12, line 8)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 1
Eldering further teaches:
wherein said audience information includes conversion information for audiences of said first, addressable assets (see Column 4, line 60-Column 5, line 24)
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Elderin, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 11
Eldering further teaches:
wherein a first asset of said multiple delivered assets had first targeting parameters defining a targeted audience for delivery of said first asset (see at least Column 8, lines 25-61 in which target audience information for an asset is received from an advertiser and that is matched to user devices via a platform for connecting with and serving ads to television audiences)
said targeting module is operative for determining engagement parameters for said first asset based on said engagement information, said engagement parameters defining an engaged audience for said first asset different than said targeted audience (see Column 9, lines 52-65, Column 10, lines 47-59, and Column 11, line 54-Column 12, line 8)
identifying said one or more asset delivery opportunities based on said engagement parameters device (see Column 9, lines 52-65, Column 10, lines 47-59, and Column 11, line 54-Column 12, line 8)
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 11
Morales further teaches:
wherein at least one of said identified asset delivery opportunities is a non-addressable asset delivery opportunity (see [0014]-[0020], [0028], [0040], and [0044] in which sampled audience data from measured audiences such as set-top boxes that include viewership size and composition such as demographics is then used to estimate non-measured larger audience size and composition; see also [0003] which discusses how ratings companies extrapolate measured data to estimate size and composition of larger non-measurable audiences)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Morales with Eldering because Eldering already teaches a similar type matching and targeting for addressable assets watching a television show, and targeting non-addressable assets would allow for an advertiser to place ads in a more general television program while able to meet their targeting goals.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 11
Eldering further teaches:
wherein said first receiving comprises obtaining information from an addressable asset delivery opportunity system (see Column 9, lines 23-41)
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 11
Eldering further teaches:
wherein said first receiving comprises obtaining product purchase information for the audience that received the delivered asset (see Column 4, line 60-Column 5, line 24 and Column 6, lines 1-25)
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 11
Eldering further teaches:
wherein said subject matter parameters define a target audience for said subject asset (see Column 6, lines 1-25)
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 11
Eldering further teaches:
wherein said subject matter parameters define an identity or characteristic of goods or services promoted by said subject asset (see Column 6, lines 5-20)
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 19
Eldering further teaches:
wherein said step of operating comprises obtaining information from user equipment devices in relation to a hypothetical asset (see Column 10, line 47- Column 11, line 10 in which probabilistic measures such as surveys are used to determine user interests in such as products even though they may not have purchased the asset, and it is therefore a hypothetical product since the user has not purchase or owned it but the interest is determined based on a survey response versus hard actual purchase data)
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eldering, Patent No. 7,062,510 B1 in view of in view of Morales, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0181267 A1 and in further view of Shah, et al., Pre-grant Publication No. 2017/0187478 A1 and in further view of Cui, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0332310 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of claim 1
Morales further teaches:
providing a non-addressable targeting module for providing data for matching asset delivery requests to said second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities (see [0014]-[0020], [0028], [0040], and [0044] in which sampled audience data from measured audiences such as set-top boxes that include viewership size and composition such as demographics is then used to estimate non-measured larger audience size and composition; see also [0003] which discusses how ratings companies extrapolate measured data to estimate size and composition of larger non-measurable audiences)
Eldering, Morales, and Shah, however, does not appear to specify:
providing a non-addressable targeting module for matching asset delivery requests to said second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities
first operating said non-addressable targeting module to receive at least a portion of said audience information concerning said second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities and to receive a first asset delivery request specifying targeting parameters for a non-addressable asset for potential placement in at least a selected one of said second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities
second operating said non-addressable targeting module for comparing said targeting parameters for said non-addressable asset to said portion of said audience information concerning said second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities to select one or more of said second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities responsive to said first asset delivery request (see at least Figures 7 and 8, [0089]-[0094] and [0099]-[0109])
Cui teaches:
providing a non-addressable module for matching asset delivery requests to said
second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities (see at least [0040])
first operating said non-addressable targeting module to receive at least a portion of said audience information concerning said second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities and to receive a first asset delivery request specifying targeting parameters for a non-addressable asset for potential placement in at least a selected one of said second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities (see at least [0040], [0056], [0067]-[0069], [0100], and [0123]-[0128] in which targeting parameters and asset delivery request is received from an advertiser, and an estimate of audience reach and composition is extrapolated from the sample audience data)
second operating said non-addressable targeting module for comparing said targeting parameters for said non-addressable asset to said portion of said audience information concerning said second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities to select one or more of said second, non-addressable asset delivery opportunities responsive to said first asset delivery request (see at least [0040], [0056], [0067]-[0069], [0100], and [0123]-[0128] in which targeting parameters and asset delivery request is received from an advertiser, and an estimate of audience reach and composition is extrapolated from the sample audience data)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cui with Eldering, Morales, and Shah because Eldering already teaches a similar type matching and targeting for addressable assets watching a television show, and Morales already identifies the non-addressable asset opportunities based on the measured addressable audience data, but does not teach actively engaging the advertiser by receiving their campaign parameters and then matching the parameters to the asset deliver opportunities or providing the advertiser with estimated reach and composition data for the non-addressable assets, and doing so would allow for servicing of advertiser that want a full-service campaign management system rather than just data analysis and delivery.
Regarding Claims 6, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 4…
Eldering, Morales, and Shah, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein said audience information identifies an asset delivered to said current audience
Cui teaches:
wherein said audience information identifies an asset delivered to said current audience (see at least [0040], [0100], and [0125])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cui with Eldering, Morales, and Shah because Eldering already teaches managing a campaign for a specific advertisement for an advertiser, and an asset delivered to set current audience makes the analysis more relevant.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eldering, Patent No. 7,062,510 B1 in view of in view of Morales, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0181267 A1 and in further view of Shah, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0187478 A1 and in further view of Boulet, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0287915 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 3…
Eldering, Morales, and Shah, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein said audience information identifies a bandwidth segment delivered to said current audience
Boulet teaches:
wherein said audience information identifies a bandwidth segment delivered to said current audience (see [0269])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Boulet with Eldering, Morales, and Shah because Eldering already teaches gathering and inferring other user characteristic data including what they view and how they interact with the network programming, and bandwidth considerations would allow for deciding who to target an ad to and when to simply buy the entire daypart for the program.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eldering, Patent No. 7,062,510 B1 in view of in view of Morales, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0181267 A1 and in further view of Shah, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0187478 A1 and in further view of Cooper, et al., Pre-Grant Publication N0. 2007/0220575 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Eldering, Morales, and Shah teaches:
the method of Claim 1…
Eldering, Morales, and Shah, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein said audience information includes, for one or more targeted users of one of said first addressable assets, network usage information obtained by tracking network usage of said targeted users separate from said one or more said first addressable assets
Cooper teaches:
wherein said audience information includes, for one or more targeted users of one of said first addressable assets, network usage information obtained by tracking network usage of said targeted users separate from said one or more said first addressable assets (see at least [0427])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cooper with Eldering, Morales, and Shah because Eldering already teaches gathering and inferring other user characteristic data including what they view and how they interact with the network programming, and network usage tracking would be another useful data point for targeting.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldering, Patent No. 7,062,510 B1 in view of Cheng, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0343027 A1.
Regarding Claim 18, Eldering teaches:
A method for use in identifying a target audience for an asset, comprising:
first operating a targeting module to receive asset delivery information including, for each delivered asset of multiple delivered assets: 1) audience information concerning classification parameters of an audience that received the delivered asset (see at least Column 8, lines 25-61 in which target audience information for an asset is received from an advertiser and that is matched to user devices via a platform for connecting with and serving ads to television audiences) and 2) audience engagement information concerning one of levels of interest and conversions for the audience that received the delivered asset device (see Column 9, lines 52-65, Column 10, lines 47-59, and Column 11, line 54-Column 12, line 8)
wherein a first asset of said multiple delivered assets had first targeting parameters defining a targeted audience for delivery of said first asset (see at least Column 8, lines 25-61 in which target audience information for an asset is received from an advertiser and that is matched to user devices via a platform for connecting with and serving ads to television audiences)
said targeting module is operative for
determining engagement parameters for said first asset based on said engagement information (see Column 9, lines 52-65, Column 10, lines 47-59, and Column 11, line 54-Column 12, line 8)
identifying said one or more asset delivery opportunities based on said engagement parameters (see Column 9, lines 52-65, Column 10, lines 47-59, and Column 11, line 54-Column 12, line 8)
Eldering, however, does not appear to specify:
said engagement parameters defining an engaged audience for said first asset different than said targeted audience
Cheng teaches:
said engagement parameters defining an engaged audience for said first asset different than said targeted audience (see Abstract, Figure 4, claim 1, and [0039]-[0049] in which positive responses from specific users from an audience that has been targeted with ad content are identified, commonalities between those users are identified, and a new segment is identified of user and other users that have the one or more commonalities that those users who responded positively had)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cheng with Eldering because Eldering already teaches gathering and inferring user characteristic data for targeting, and using interaction data to find commonalities among those that interacted positively would allow for new segments and attributes to be identified based on actual response data which would better refine and optimize the targeting for the current conditions.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eldering, Patent No. 7,062,510 B1 in view of in view of Morales, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0181267 A1 and in further view of Shah, et al., Pre-grant Publication No. 2017/0187478 A1 and in further view of Cui, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0332310 A1 and in further view of Garza, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0337868 A1.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Eldering, Morales, Shah, and Cui teaches:
The method of claim 2
Eldering, Morales, Shah, and Cui, however, does not appear to specify:
receiving bids from respective asset providers associated with the targeting constraints
selecting a single bid from the received bids using the developed audience composition information estimates
transmit the corresponding asset to the single selected bid to at least one member of the audience members
Garza teaches:
receiving bids from respective asset providers associated with the targeting constraints, selecting a single bid from the received bids using the developed audience composition information estimates, and transmit the corresponding asset to the single selected bid to at least one member of the audience members (see at least [0127] and [0151] in which multiple advertisers bid on an ad opportunity for an estimated audience associated with specific targeting constraints, and the system selects one winning bid and delivers the ad content from the winning advertiser to one or more members of the identified audience)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Garza with Eldering, Morales, Shah, and Cui because Eldering already teaches delivering targeted assets for advertisers and Cui already teaches targeted ad placement using bids for advertisers, and conducting an auction for placement for an audience and selecting a winning bid would allow the system to serve more advertisers and create greater revenue from ad placement based on a highest bid.
Conclusion
The following prior art references were not relied upon in this Office Action but are considered pertinent to the applicant’s invention:
Sharma, et al., Patent No. 9,747,497 B1- uses extrapolation to estimate actual impressions for a larger audience based on a smaller sample in a campaign
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3435.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights