Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 19/013,877 filed 01/08/2025. Claims 1-26 are pending and have been examined.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2025 and 01/07/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pottjegort (US 2013/0185164).
Consider claim 1, Pottjegort clearly teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from an advertisement source, an advertisement; (Fig. 7: Client device 710 receives an advertisement 770 from ad server 730, [0036]-[0039].)
receiving, from the advertisement source, information indicating one or more parameters, associated with output of the advertisement, to be tracked; (Figs. 7, 8: Ad server 730 sends a visibility code 820 to client 710 which allows advertisement visibility information to be tracked, [0030], [0040], [0042], [0043].)
causing the output of the advertisement; (Fig. 1: Advertisements 131-133 are displayed, [0003], [0045].) and
tracking, during the output of the advertisement and based on the information indicating the one or more parameters to be tracked, the one or more parameters. (Visibility information regarding the display of the advertisement is tracked, [0041]-[0046], [0059].)
Consider claim 2, Pottjegort clearly teaches the advertisement source comprises one or more of: an advertiser; or an advertisement server. (Fig. 7: Ad server 730, [0037])
Consider claim 3, Pottjegort clearly teaches sending, by the computing device and to a second computing device, information indicating the tracked one or more parameters. (Fig. 7: Client 710 sends visibility information to metric server 740, [0041], [0059].)
Consider claim 4, Pottjegort clearly teaches receiving the information indicating the one or more parameters to be tracked further comprises receiving a configuration file for the advertisement comprising the information indicating the one or more parameters to be tracked. (Fig. 8: Visibility code 820, [0042], [0043].)
Consider claim 5, Pottjegort clearly teaches the tracking the one or more parameters further comprises: monitoring interactions of a user with the computing device during the output of the advertisement. (Mouse movement and clicks are tracked, [0101]-[0103], [0116].)
Consider claim 6, Pottjegort clearly teaches the one or more parameters to be tracked comprise impairments to an effectiveness of the advertisement. (Visibility information includes the extent to which the advertisement was visible, [0075].)
Consider claim 7, Pottjegort clearly teaches receiving, from the advertisement source, second information indicating one or more restrictions associated with output of the advertisement. (Visibility code 820 restricts the browser 715 from reporting an advertisement as visible based on a percentage of the advertisement displayed, [0075].)
Consider claim 8, Pottjegort clearly teaches sending, to a second computing device, a report identifying the tracked one or more parameters. (Fig. 7: Client 710 sends visibility information to metric server 740, [0041], [0059].)
Consider claim 9, Pottjegort clearly teaches the information indicating the one or more parameters to be tracked comprises a configuration file, from the advertisement source, to accompany delivery of the advertisement. (Fig. 8: Visibility code 820 is received from ad server 730, [0040], [0042].)
Consider claim 10, Pottjegort clearly teaches the one or more parameters comprise one or more of: a change in audio level; an obscuration of a portion of the advertisement; (Visibility information includes the extent to which the advertisement was visible, [0075].) a change in display size associated with the advertisement; and an interaction with an application.
Consider claim 11, Pottjegort clearly teaches the information indicating the one or more parameters comprises instructions to track an event at a communications interface. (Fig. 7: Visibility code 820 tracks the visibility of advertisements drawn on client device screen 712, [0043], [0044].)
Consider claim 21, Pottjegort clearly teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, an advertisement; (Fig. 7: Client device 710 receives an advertisement 770 from ad server 730, [0036]-[0039].)
causing output of the advertisement; (Fig. 1: Advertisements 131-133 are displayed, [0003], [0045].)
tracking an event, at a communications interface associated with the computing device, during the output of the advertisement; (Figs. 7, 8: Ad server 730 sends a visibility code 820 to client 710 which allows the visibility of advertisements drawn on client device screen 712 to be tracked, [0030], [0040], [0042], [0043], [0044].) and
sending, to a second computing device, an indication of the tracked event. (Fig. 7: Client 710 sends visibility information to metric server 740, [0041], [0059].)
Consider claim 22, Pottjegort clearly teaches the communications interface comprises a physical communications interface. (Figs. 5, 7: Screen 712, [0031], [0043])
Consider claim 23, Pottjegort clearly teaches the communications interface comprises a physical communications interface comprising an input source associated with the computing device. (Fig. 7: Screen 712 receives webpage 750 and advertisements for display, [0034]-[0038], [0043]-[0045].)
Consider claim 24, Pottjegort clearly teaches the tracking the event comprises tracking a state change, during the output of the advertisement, of the communications interface. (Changes in pixels are tracked, [0044], [0045].)
Consider claim 25, Pottjegort clearly teaches the tracking the event comprises monitoring, during the output of the advertisement, the communications interface for a state change and tracking the state change. (Changes in pixels are tracked, [0044], [0045].)
Consider claim 26, Pottjegort clearly teaches the tracking is based on a configuration file, from an advertisement source, accompanying the advertisement, wherein the configuration file indicates one or more parameters to be tracked during output of the advertisement. (Fig. 8: Visibility code 820 is received from ad server 730, [0040], [0042].)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pottjegort (US 2013/0185164) in view of Filev et al. (US 2017/0140421), herein Filev.
Consider claim 12, Pottjegort clearly teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, from a content source, an advertisement; (Fig. 7: Client device 710 receives an advertisement 770 from ad server 730, [0036]-[0039].)
receiving, from the content source, information indicating one or more parameters to be tracked for the output of the advertisement; (Figs. 7, 8: Ad server 730 sends a visibility code 820 to client 710 which allows advertisement visibility information to be tracked, [0030], [0040], [0042], [0043].) and
sending, the advertisement and the information indicating the one or more parameters to be tracked. (Figs. 7, 8: Ad server 730 sends advertisement 770 and visibility code 820 to client 710 which allows advertisement visibility information to be tracked, [0030], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043].)
However, Pottjegort does not explicitly teach receiving, by a computing device, from a content source, and for output by a second computing device, an advertisement; and sending, to the second computing device, the advertisement.
In an analogous art, Filev, which discloses an advertisement system, clearly teaches receiving, by a computing device, from a content source, and for output by a second computing device, an advertisement; and sending, to the second computing device, the advertisement. (Figs. 1, 2: Advertisers 102 send advertisements to ad system 204 which stores the advertisements then provides them to user 108, [0037], [0038].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Pottjegort by receiving, by a computing device, from a content source, and for output by a second computing device, an advertisement; and sending, to the second computing device, the advertisement, as taught by Filev, for the benefit of efficiently selecting advertisements to provide to the user.
Consider claim 13, Pottjegort combined with Filev clearly teaches receiving, from the second computing device, second information associated with the one or more parameters. (Fig. 7: Client 710 sends visibility information to metric server 740, [0041], [0059] Pottjegort.)
Consider claim 14, Pottjegort combined with Filev clearly teaches the information comprising the one or more parameters to be tracked further comprises a configuration file comprising a set of instructions for performance by the second computing device during the output of the advertisement. (Fig. 8: Visibility code 820, [0042], [0043] Pottjegort.)
Consider claim 15, Pottjegort combined with Filev clearly teaches sending, to the second computing device, a content item, wherein the computing device sends the advertisement and the information indicating the one or more parameters to be tracked with the content item. (Figs. 7, 8: Ad server 730 sends advertisement 770 and visibility code 820 to client 710 which allows advertisement visibility information to be tracked, [0030], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043] Pottjegort.)
Consider claim 16, Pottjegort combined with Filev clearly teaches receiving, from the content source, second information indicating one or more restrictions, for an output device, during output of the advertisement. (Visibility code 820 restricts the browser 715 from reporting an advertisement as visible based on a percentage of the advertisement displayed, [0075] Pottjegort.)
Consider claim 17, Pottjegort combined with Filev clearly teaches receiving, from the second computing device, second information associated with the one or more parameters; (Fig. 7: Client 710 sends visibility information to metric server 740, [0041], [0059] Pottjegort.) and selecting, based on the second information, a second advertisement for output via the second computing device. (Advertisements are redesigned based on the visibility information, [0114] Pottjegort.)
Consider claim 18, Pottjegort combined with Filev clearly teaches receiving, from the second computing device, a report file indicating the one or more parameters that were tracked. (Fig. 7: Client 710 sends visibility information to metric server 740, [0041], [0059] Pottjegort.)
Consider claim 19, Pottjegort combined with Filev clearly teaches the information indicating the one or more parameters comprises instructions to track an event at a communications interface associated with the second computing device. (Fig. 7: Visibility code 820 tracks the visibility of advertisements drawn on client device screen 712, [0043], [0044] Pottjegort.)
Consider claim 20, Pottjegort combined with Filev clearly teaches the content source comprises one or more of: an advertiser; or an advertisement server. (Fig. 7: Ad server 730, [0037] Pottjegort)
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights