DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Application 19/022,283 filed on 01/15/2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and examined below.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-51 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
An electronic apparatus comprising:
a communication device configured to communicate with an external apparatus;
memory; and
at least one processor is configured to:
control the communication device to obtain a first advertisement content,
control the communication device to provide information on exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content and identification information corresponding to the obtained first advertisement content to a server, and
based on receiving advertisement information related to the obtained first advertisement content, control the communication device to obtain a second advertisement content based on the received advertisement information.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified above do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing is related to commerce and economy, a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
In Step 2A Prong Two, these additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. “[T]he 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 pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-10 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of “further comprising: a display”, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the display to”, and “on the display”. Claim 3 recites the additional elements of “the at least one processor is configured to”, “of a cursor on the display”, “the cursor”, and “on the display”. Claim 4 recites the additional elements of “video”, “the at least one processor is configured to”, “cursor”, and “on the display”. Claim 5 recites the additional elements of “the at least one processor is configured to”, “video”, “screen”, and “display”. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “further comprising: a display”, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to”, “control the communication device to”, and “control the display to”. Claim 9 recites the additional elements of “the at least one processor is configured to”, “image”, “control the communication device to”, “in an image”, “to the server”, “control the communication device to”, and “in the memory”. Claim 10 recites the additional elements of “further comprising: a display”, “image”, “is a home screen output on the display”, and “inside the home screen”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 6-7 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claims 6-7 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 11 recites (additional elements underlined):
A method of controlling an electronic apparatus including a communication device configured to communicate with an external apparatus, and a display, the method comprising:
obtaining information on exposure time of a first advertisement content output on the display;
providing identification information corresponding to the first advertisement content to a server through the communication device;
obtaining advertisement information related to the first advertisement content through the communication device; and
obtaining a second advertisement content based on the obtained advertisement information through the communication device.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mental process and certain methods of organizing human activities). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 12-14 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 11 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 12 recites the additional element of “on the display”. Claim 13 recites the additional elements of “of a cursor on the display” and “on the display”. Claim 14 recites the additional elements of “video”, “a cursor on the display”, and “on the display”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 11. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 11, claim 15 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., certain method of organizing human activities, and mental processes). Claim 15 recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for executing a controlling … of an electronic apparatus including a communication device configured to communicate with an external apparatus, and a display”, “on the display”, “to a server through the communication device”, and “through the communication device”. However, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 11, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compain et al. (US 2014/0181634 A1, hereinafter “Compain”) in view of Belvin et al. (US 2012/0016733 A1, hereinafter “Belvin”).
As per Claim 1, Compain discloses An electronic apparatus comprising (¶ 25 “A user device 106 is an electronic device that is under the control of a user and is capable of requesting and receiving resources over the network 102.” Also see at least Figure 5.):
a communication device configured to communicate with an external apparatus (¶ 25 “A user device 106 is an electronic device that is under the control of a user and is capable of requesting and receiving resources over the network 102. Example user devices 106 include personal computers, mobile communication devices, and other devices that can send and receive data over the network 102. A user device 106 typically includes a user application, such as a web browser, to facilitate the sending and receiving of data over the network 102. The web browser can enable a user to display and interact with text, images, videos, music and other information typically located on a web page at a website on the world wide web or a local area network.” Also see at least Figure 5.);
memory (¶ 80 “ Computing device 550 includes a processor 552, memory 564, an input/output device such as a display 554, a communication interface 566, and a transceiver 568, among other components. “ Also see at least Figure 5.); and
at least one processor is configured to (¶ 80 “ Computing device 550 includes a processor 552, memory 564, an input/output device such as a display 554, a communication interface 566, and a transceiver 568, among other components. “ Also see at least Figure 5.):
control the communication device to obtain a first advertisement content (¶ 7 “receiving from the server system one or more replacement content items that were selected based at least in part on the transmitted feedback, and updating the displayed presentation page to replace one or more of the displayed content items with the received one or more replacement content items.” ¶ 20 “content items (e.g., advertisements displayed in a webpage)”. ¶ 38 “the presentation page 205, e.g., a webpage rendered by a browser application executing on the client device 210, includes not only content provided by the presentation page's publisher 220, but also includes an inventory of content spaces (labeled A, B, C, D, E in FIG. 2) in which ads or other content items can be displayed. Typically, the ads to be displayed in the spaces A-E are received from a content server 225 (e.g., an advertising server) and are rendered by the browser application in the respective spaces A-E.” ¶ 70 “FIG. 4B is a flowchart of an example process 430 performed by a client device to facilitate selectively replacing content items in a presentation page displayed at a client device. The process 430 operates in a context in which the user is aware of, and has consented to, the use of user interaction feedback to facilitate selective replacement of content items. At 435, a presentation page comprising a plurality of content items (e.g., a dynamic webpage composed of content including one or more ads that are individually and independently replaceable) is displayed to a user.” Also see at least Figure 4B.), and
based on receiving advertisement information related to the obtained first advertisement content, control the communication device to obtain a second advertisement content based on the received advertisement information (¶ 47 “Alternatively, depending on context and circumstances, an affirmative act by a user of "mousing over" a content item without clicking on it (or taking other predetermined action) may indicate a level of interest in the content item. In that case, a determination may be made either not to replace the content item in question or replace it with a complementary content item, e.g., one related to the same general subject matter or topic.” ¶ 71 “At 440, the process 430 detects an affirmative act performed by the user from which an inference can be made relating to one or more of the displayed content items.” ¶ 72 “At 445, the process 430 transmits feedback corresponding to the detected affirmative user action to a server system (comprised, e.g., of an analytics engine, a replacement logic engine and a content item server) at which, for example, content replacement decisions (e.g., whether to replace and, if so, with what it should be replace) may be made. At 450, the process 430 receives from the server system one or more replacement content items that were selected based at least in part on the transmitted feedback. Lastly, at 455 the process 430 updates the displayed presentation page (e.g., without affecting other content on the page) to replace one or more of the displayed content items with the received one or more replacement content items.” Also see at least Figure 4B. The client device in Compain transmits the feedback data which is related to the obtained first advertisement content, and the server provides the client device with a second advertisement content based on the received feedback data.).
While Compain discloses the transmitting of feedback data regarding an affirmative act performed by the user from which an inference can be made relating to the one or more displayed advertisements, Compain does not appear to explicitly disclose control the communication device to provide information on exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content and identification information corresponding to the obtained first advertisement content to a server.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Belvin teaches control the communication device to provide information on exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content and identification information corresponding to the obtained first advertisement content to a server (¶ 19 “a consumer accesses electronic content from a content delivery channel 110, the consumer may be presented with one or more advertisements 105 with the accessed content. For each advertisement containing a script as described herein, the presentation of the advertisement to a consumer results in the sending of a presentation message from the computing device 120 to the monitoring system 100. The presentation message contains information that reflects the identity of the presented advertisement [i.e., providing the identification information corresponding to the obtained first advertisement content to a server], the identity of the computing device (if available) on which the advertisement was presented, and indicia reflecting the physical location of the computing device. If the consumer also expresses an interest in an advertisement, such as by hovering over or selecting the advertisement, the presentation message also contains an indication that the consumer expressed such an interest in the advertisement [i.e., user interests is expressed by a user hovering over an advertisement].” ¶ 20 “By receiving the presentation messages, the monitoring system 100 builds and maintains a record of electronic advertisements that have been presented to consumers. ¶ 45 “The time at which the advertisement was presented to the consumer is recorded in a ‘date presented’ field 620 and a ‘time presented’ field 625. [i.e., providing information on exposure time of the obtained first advertisement]” Also see Figure 6A which shows the monitoring system 100 storing an advertising identifier in element 615, and advertisement exposure times in elements 620 and 625 that is obtained from the presentation message sent from the computing device 100.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the feedback data that is transmitted from the client device to the server as taught by Compain, to include the information on exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content and identification information corresponding to the obtained first advertisement as taught by Belvin, because doing so would enable the system to determine if a consumer expressed an interested in a particular advertisement (Belvin, ¶ 15). The combination would also enable the system to better targeted advertising content to consumers (Belvin, ¶¶ 21-22 and 24). The combination would also enable the system to track advertisements presented to consumers (Belvin, ¶ 17). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 11, Compain discloses A method of controlling an electronic apparatus including a communication device configured to communicate with an external apparatus, and a display, the method comprising (¶ 3 “In general, one aspect of the subject matter described in this specification may be embodied in systems, methods performed by data processing apparatus and non-transitory computer storage media encoded with computer programs”. Also see at least ¶¶ 25 and 80 and Figure 5.):
obtaining advertisement information related to the first advertisement content through the communication device (¶ 47 “Alternatively, depending on context and circumstances, an affirmative act by a user of "mousing over" a content item without clicking on it (or taking other predetermined action) may indicate a level of interest in the content item. In that case, a determination may be made either not to replace the content item in question or replace it with a complementary content item, e.g., one related to the same general subject matter or topic.” ¶ 71 “At 440, the process 430 detects an affirmative act performed by the user from which an inference can be made relating to one or more of the displayed content items.” ¶ 72 “At 445, the process 430 transmits feedback corresponding to the detected affirmative user action to a server system (comprised, e.g., of an analytics engine, a replacement logic engine and a content item server) at which, for example, content replacement decisions (e.g., whether to replace and, if so, with what it should be replace) may be made. At 450, the process 430 receives from the server system one or more replacement content items that were selected based at least in part on the transmitted feedback. Lastly, at 455 the process 430 updates the displayed presentation page (e.g., without affecting other content on the page) to replace one or more of the displayed content items with the received one or more replacement content items.” Also see at least Figure 4B. The client device in Compain transmits the feedback data which is related to the obtained first advertisement content, and the server provides the client device with a second advertisement content based on the received feedback data.); and
obtaining a second advertisement content based on the obtained advertisement information through the communication device (¶ 47 “Alternatively, depending on context and circumstances, an affirmative act by a user of "mousing over" a content item without clicking on it (or taking other predetermined action) may indicate a level of interest in the content item. In that case, a determination may be made either not to replace the content item in question or replace it with a complementary content item, e.g., one related to the same general subject matter or topic.” ¶ 71 “At 440, the process 430 detects an affirmative act performed by the user from which an inference can be made relating to one or more of the displayed content items.” ¶ 72 “At 445, the process 430 transmits feedback corresponding to the detected affirmative user action to a server system (comprised, e.g., of an analytics engine, a replacement logic engine and a content item server) at which, for example, content replacement decisions (e.g., whether to replace and, if so, with what it should be replace) may be made. At 450, the process 430 receives from the server system one or more replacement content items that were selected based at least in part on the transmitted feedback. Lastly, at 455 the process 430 updates the displayed presentation page (e.g., without affecting other content on the page) to replace one or more of the displayed content items with the received one or more replacement content items.” Also see at least Figure 4B. The client device in Compain transmits the feedback data which is related to the obtained first advertisement content, and the server provides the client device with a second advertisement content based on the received feedback data.).
While Compain discloses the transmitting of feedback data regarding an affirmative act performed by the user from which an inference can be made relating to the one or more displayed advertisements, Compain does not appear to explicitly disclose obtaining information on exposure time of a first advertisement content output on the display; and providing identification information corresponding to the first advertisement content to a server through the communication device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Belvin teaches the limitations: obtaining information on exposure time of a first advertisement content output on the display; and providing identification information corresponding to the first advertisement content to a server through the communication device (¶ 19 “a consumer accesses electronic content from a content delivery channel 110, the consumer may be presented with one or more advertisements 105 with the accessed content. For each advertisement containing a script as described herein, the presentation of the advertisement to a consumer results in the sending of a presentation message from the computing device 120 to the monitoring system 100. The presentation message contains information that reflects the identity of the presented advertisement [i.e., providing the identification information corresponding to the obtained first advertisement content to a server], the identity of the computing device (if available) on which the advertisement was presented, and indicia reflecting the physical location of the computing device. If the consumer also expresses an interest in an advertisement, such as by hovering over or selecting the advertisement, the presentation message also contains an indication that the consumer expressed such an interest in the advertisement [i.e., user interests is expressed by a user hovering over an advertisement].” ¶ 20 “By receiving the presentation messages, the monitoring system 100 builds and maintains a record of electronic advertisements that have been presented to consumers. ¶ 45 “The time at which the advertisement was presented to the consumer is recorded in a ‘date presented’ field 620 and a ‘time presented’ field 625. [i.e., providing information on exposure time of the obtained first advertisement]” Also see Figure 6A which shows the monitoring system 100 storing an advertising identifier in element 615, and advertisement exposure times in elements 620 and 625 that is obtained from the presentation message sent from the computing device 100.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the feedback data that is transmitted from the client device to the server as taught by Compain, to include the information on exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content and identification information corresponding to the obtained first advertisement as taught by Belvin, because doing so would enable the system to determine if a consumer expressed an interested in a particular advertisement (Belvin, ¶ 15). The combination would also enable the system to better targeted advertising content to consumers (Belvin, ¶¶ 21-22 and 24). The combination would also enable the system to track advertisements presented to consumers (Belvin, ¶ 17). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 15, it recites substantially similar limitations as claim 11. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compain in view of Belvin, in further view of Nicholas et al. (US 2006/0026067 A1, hereinafter “Nicholas”).
As per Claim 2, Compain disclose further comprising:
a display (¶¶ 25 and 80. Also see at least Figure 5),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the display to output the obtained first advertisement content (¶¶ 8, 25, and 38. Also see at least Figure 5).
While Compain transmits exposure information to a server, Compain does not appear to disclose the information on the exposure time includes: information on a first time during which the obtained first advertisement content was output on the display. However, in the same field of endeavor, Belvin teaches this limitation in at least Figure 6A. Also see at least ¶ 45 “The time at which the advertisement was presented to the consumer is recorded in a ‘date presented’ field 620 and a ‘time presented’ field 625.” Also see Figure 6A which shows the monitoring system 100 storing an advertising identifier in element 615, and advertisement exposure times in elements 620 and 625 that is obtained from the presentation message sent from the computing device 100.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the feedback data that is transmitted from the client device to the server as taught by Compain, to include the information on exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content and identification information corresponding to the obtained first advertisement as taught by Belvin, because doing so would enable the system to determine if a consumer expressed an interested in a particular advertisement (Belvin, ¶ 15). The combination would also enable the system to better targeted advertising content to consumers (Belvin, ¶¶ 21-22 and 24). The combination would also enable the system to track advertisements presented to consumers (Belvin, ¶ 17). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While the client device of Belvin provides information on the exposure time to the server, the combination of Compain/Belvin as modified above do not appear to explicitly teach information on a second time during which a focus was maintained on the obtained first advertisement content output on the display.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nicholas teaches information on a second time during which a focus was maintained on the obtained first advertisement content output on the display. (¶ 271 “When the advertisement is displayed, the interest level the viewer has in the advertisement is recorded 764. In one embodiment, the interest level is established by whether the viewer clicks on an advertisement. In one embodiment, the ad interest level is established by the amount of time the viewer interacts with an interactive advertisement, or the time the viewer's mouse is over the advertisement. In one embodiment, information may also be recorded regarding navigation throughout a click through destination site of an advertisement, including information regarding any purchases, account signups or the like. In one embodiment, ad interest level will also be established in part based upon the viewer of the advertisement going to the click through destination site not based upon click through but later in their surfing. In one embodiment, different interactions with the advertisement or click through destination site will result in different interest level assignments to the viewer. Based on the ad interest level, the characteristics cookie is updated 765. Alternatively, a different or new cookie may be used to maintain ad interest level data.” Also see at least ¶¶ 272-276.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the exposure information as taught by the combination of Compain/Belvin as modified above, to include information on a second time during which a focus was maintained on the obtained first advertisement content output on the display as taught by Nicholas, because doing so would enable the system to provide further advertisements based on the interest level of the user (Nicholas, ¶¶ 271-276). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per 12, it recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale.
As per Claim 3, Compain discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to (¶¶ 8, 25, and 38. Also see at least Figure 5).
While the client device of Belvin provides information on the exposure time to the server, the combination of Compain/Belvin as modified above do not appear to explicitly teach based on change of a location of a cursor on the display by a received user input, obtain the information on the second time corresponding to a time during which the cursor was maintained on a location of the obtained first advertisement content output on the display.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nicholas teaches based on change of a location of a cursor on the display by a received user input, obtain the information on the second time corresponding to a time during which the cursor was maintained on a location of the obtained first advertisement content output on the display (¶ 271 “When the advertisement is displayed, the interest level the viewer has in the advertisement is recorded 764. In one embodiment, the interest level is established by whether the viewer clicks on an advertisement. In one embodiment, the ad interest level is established by the amount of time the viewer interacts with an interactive advertisement, or the time the viewer's mouse is over the advertisement. In one embodiment, information may also be recorded regarding navigation throughout a click through destination site of an advertisement, including information regarding any purchases, account signups or the like. In one embodiment, ad interest level will also be established in part based upon the viewer of the advertisement going to the click through destination site not based upon click through but later in their surfing. In one embodiment, different interactions with the advertisement or click through destination site will result in different interest level assignments to the viewer. Based on the ad interest level, the characteristics cookie is updated 765. Alternatively, a different or new cookie may be used to maintain ad interest level data.” Also see at least ¶¶ 272-276.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the exposure information as taught by the combination of Compain/Belvin as modified above, to include the step of obtaining information on a second time during which a cursor was maintained on a location of the obtained first advertisement content output on the display as taught by Nicholas, because doing so would enable the system to provide further advertisements based on the interest level of the user (Nicholas, ¶¶ 271-276). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per 13, it recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale.
As per Claim 4, Compain discloses the at least one processor is configured to (¶¶ 8, 25, and 38. Also see at least Figure 5).
While Compain discloses the first advertisement content to be output on the display, Compain does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the obtained advertisement content is a video content, and based on a cursor output on the display being located by a received user input on a location of the obtained first advertisement content, controlling the video content corresponding to the first advertisement content to be output on the display.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Belvin teaches wherein the obtained advertisement content is a video content (¶¶ 28 and 37), and
based on a cursor output on the display being located by a received user input on a location of the obtained first advertisement content, controlling the video content corresponding to the first advertisement content to be output on the display (¶ 28 “The electronic advertisements may be presented in a variety of formats, including text ads, banner ads, video ads, pop-up ads, pop-under ads, etc.” ¶ 37 “the action may be the consumer’s hovering-over the advertisement with a cursor or other pointing-device, thereby causing the advertisement to change by expanding, playing a video, revealing additional information, etc.” ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the advertisement content as taught by Compain, for the video advertisement as taught by Belvin, because doing so would enable the system to track a variety of advertisement formats (Belvin, ¶¶ 28-29). Additionally, Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the video advertisement of Belvin for the advertisement of Compain. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious (KSR Rationale B).
The combination would also enable the advertisement to play a video and/or reveal additional information in response to the user hovering-over the advertisement (Belvin, ¶ 37). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per 14, it recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compain in view of Belvin, in further view of Yi (US 2019/0034960 A1, hereinafter “Yi”).
As per Claim 5, Compain discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to (¶¶ 8, 25, and 38. Also see at least Figure 5).
The combination of Compain/Belvin do not appear to explicitly teach obtain the exposure time information based on a weight corresponding to at least one of a selection command for the obtained first advertisement content, video reproduction time of the obtained first advertisement content, screen size of the obtained first advertisement content, or a display location of the obtained first advertisement content.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yi teaches obtain the exposure time information based on a weight corresponding to at least one of a selection command for the obtained first advertisement content, video reproduction time of the obtained first advertisement content, screen size of the obtained first advertisement content, or a display location of the obtained first advertisement content (¶ 49 “the dwell time of the presentation of the ad is measured. That is, the amount of time that the user viewed or was exposed to the ad during that particular presentation of the ad (e.g. on a web page) is measured and recorded” ¶ 94 “It is recognized that an advertisement may be partially visible to various degrees depending upon the scroll location to which a user has scrolled. Therefore, it is contemplated that in various embodiments, the accrual of scroll dwell time for an advertisement is affected by the portion of the advertisement that is visible. In one embodiment, scroll dwell time is only recorded when the entirety of the advertisement is visible. In another embodiment, scroll dwell time is weighted by the fractional portion of the advertisement that is visible. That is, the lower the fractional portion of the advertisement that is visible, then the lower the weighting applied to the scroll dwell time recorded for the advertisement; and the higher the fractional portion of the advertisement that is visible, then the higher the weighting applied to the scroll dwell time. A maximum weighting may be defined for when the entirety of the advertisement is visible [i.e., weight corresponding to display location of the obtained first advertisement content].” ¶ 96 “In another embodiment, the weighting applied may vary depending upon which portion of an advertisement is visible. For example, a higher weighting may be applied for an upper portion of an advertisement and a lower weighting applied for a lower portion of the advertisement [i.e., weight corresponding to screen size of the obtained first advertisement content]. In this manner, when the user scrolls down only far enough to partially show an advertisement, a publisher may be credited with a portion of the scroll dwell time that is greater than the fractional portion of the advertisement shown, to reflect the fact that the advertisement was in fact displayed to the user, if only in part. In yet another embodiment, the weighting can be predefined for any portion of an advertisement. For example, a middle portion of an advertisement may have a higher weighting than either of upper or lower portions of the advertisement. This may be desired where the middle portion of the advertisement is of greater importance to the advertiser than the upper or lower portions. It should be appreciated than any number of portions of an advertisement can have predefined weightings, each of which may be applied in proportion to the amount of its corresponding portion that is displayed.” Also see claim 1.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the information on exposure time of the obtained advertisement content as taught by the combination of Compain/Belvin as modified above, to include the weight corresponding to at least screen size of the obtained first advertisement content and display location of the obtained first advertisement content as taught Yi, because doing so would provide a more accurate and fine-grained understanding of user engagement (Yi, ¶ 39). The combination would also enable the system to more accurately measure the exposure of ads to a targeted audience (Yi, ¶ 64). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compain in view of Belvin, in view of Nicholas, in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0296483 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”).
As per Claim 6, Compain discloses wherein the received advertisement information includes (¶¶ 47, 71-72, and Figure 4B).
While Compain discloses the received advertisement information, the combination of Compain/Belvin does not appear to explicitly disclose based on the exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content being greater than a predetermined value, … information of a second advertisement content having at least one of an attribute or classification corresponding to the obtained first advertisement content.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nicholas discloses based on the exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content being greater than a predetermined value, … information of a second advertisement content having at least one of an attribute or classification corresponding to the obtained first advertisement content (¶¶ 271-275).
The Examiner notes that Nicholas teaches exposure time being greater a predetermined value because Nicholas provides a second advertisement having at least one of an attribute or classification corresponding to the obtained first advertisement when a user ad interest level is high, and provides a second advertisement different from the obtained first advertisement content when a user ad interest level is low. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a predetermined value must be used in order to classify the exposure time as “high” or “low”. Therefore, Nicholas does teach the claimed predetermined value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the received advertisement information as disclosed by the combination of Compain/Belvin as modified above, to include information of a second advertisement content having at least one of an attribute or classification corresponding to the obtained first advertisement based on the exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content being greater than a predetermined value as taught by Nicholas, because doing so would provide the user with further information about an advertised product that is of interest to the user (Nicholas, ¶ 272-273). The combination would also prevent advertisers from wasting advertising dollars on users who are not likely to purchase their products. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While the combination of Compain/Belvin/Nicholas teach the received advertisement information including a second advertisement content, they do not appear to explicitly disclose providing address information of a second advertisement content to an electronic apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches providing address information of a second advertisement content to an electronic apparatus (¶ 147 “The advertisement server 300 may send the second advertisement landing page address to the electronic device 100 through the first application server 200.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the received advertisement information including a second advertisement content as taught by the combination of Compain/Belvin/Nicholas as modified above, to include the address information as taught by Zhang, because doing so would enable the electronic apparatus to locate the correct advertisement for display to the user. The combination would also enable the system to track an advertisement’s performance and effectiveness. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 7, Compain discloses wherein the received advertisement information includes(¶¶ 47, 71-72, and Figure 4B).
While Compain discloses the received advertisement information, the combination of Compain/Belvin does not appear to explicitly disclose based on the exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content being smaller than a predetermined value, … information of a second advertisement content having at least one of an attribute or classification different from the obtained first advertisement content.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nicholas discloses based on the exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content being smaller than a predetermined value, … information of a second advertisement content having at least one of an attribute or classification different from the obtained first advertisement content (¶¶ 271-275).
The Examiner notes that Nicholas teaches exposure time being smaller than a predetermined value because Nicholas provides a second advertisement having at least one of an attribute or classification corresponding to the obtained first advertisement when a user ad interest level is high, and provides a second advertisement different from the obtained first advertisement content when a user ad interest level is low. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a predetermined value must be used in order to classify the exposure time as “high” or “low”. Therefore, Nicholas does teach the claimed predetermined value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the received advertisement information as disclosed by the combination of Compain/Belvin as modified above, to include information of a second advertisement content having at least one of an attribute or classification different from the obtained first advertisement based on the exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content being smaller than a predetermined value as taught by Nicholas, because doing so would provide the user with further information about an advertised product that is of interest to the user (Nicholas, ¶ 272-273). The combination would also prevent advertisers from wasting advertising dollars on users who are not likely to purchase their products. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While the combination of Compain/Belvin/Nicholas teach the received advertisement information including a second advertisement content, they do not appear to explicitly disclose providing address information of a second advertisement content to an electronic apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches providing address information of a second advertisement content to an electronic apparatus (¶ 147 “The advertisement server 300 may send the second advertisement landing page address to the electronic device 100 through the first application server 200.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the received advertisement information including a second advertisement content as taught by the combination of Compain/Belvin/Nicholas as modified above, to include the address information as taught by Zhang, because doing so would enable the electronic apparatus to locate the correct advertisement for display to the user. The combination would also enable the system to track an advertisement’s performance and effectiveness. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 8, Compain discloses further comprising:
a display (¶¶ 25 and 80. Also see at least Figure 5),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to (¶¶ 8, 25, and 38. Also see at least Figure 5);
based on receiving a user input corresponding to movement to an area of no output, control the display to output the obtained new advertisement content output (¶ 46 and Figure 3. Also see ¶ 21 “advertisement presented to a user viewing a webpage can be refreshed with a new, replacement advertisement when it is determined (e.g., based on user acts or other behavior) that the user has not, and likely will not, respond to the advertisement currently presented to the user.”).
While Compain discloses the received advertisement information, the combination of Compain/Belvin does not appear to explicitly disclose based on the exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content being greater than a predetermined value, … obtain a new advertisement content related to the obtained first advertisement content.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nicholas discloses based on the exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content being greater than a predetermined value, … obtain a new advertisement content related to the obtained first advertisement content (¶¶ 271-275).
The Examiner notes that Nicholas teaches exposure time being greater a predetermined value because Nicholas provides a second advertisement having at least one of an attribute or classification corresponding to the obtained first advertisement when a user ad interest level is high, and provides a second advertisement different from the obtained first advertisement content when a user ad interest level is low. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a predetermined value must be used in order to classify the exposure time as “high” or “low”. Therefore, Nicholas does teach the claimed predetermined value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the obtaining of the second advertisement as disclosed by the combination of Compain/Belvin as modified above, to include the step of obtaining a new advertisement related to the first advertisement based on exposure time of the obtained first advertisement being greater than a predetermined value as taught by Nicholas, because doing so would provide the user with further information about an advertised product that is of interest to the user (Nicholas, ¶ 272-273). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While the combination of Compain/Belvin/Nicholas obtain a new advertisement content related to the obtained first advertisement content, they do not appear to explicitly teach control the communication device to request and obtain an advertisement.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches control the communication device to request and obtain an advertisement (¶¶ 22-24 and 88).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the step obtaining a new advertisement content related to the obtained first advertisement content as taught by the combination of Compain/Belvin/Nicholas as modified above, to include the step of the electronic apparatus requesting an advertisement as taught by Zhang, because doing so would improve advertisement display efficiency of the electronic device (Zhang, ¶ 22). The combination would also enable the electronic device to send an advertising space ID to the advertisement server (Zhang, ¶ 88) so that an advertisement with an appropriate size will be obtained for the advertisement space. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compain in view of Belvin, in view of Mougenot et al. (US 2015/0324854 A1, hereinafter “Mougenot”) .
As per Claim 9, Compain discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to (¶¶ 8, 25, and 38. Also see at least Figure 5);
control the communication device to obtain updated advertisement content (¶¶ 3 “based on a result of the determining, selectively identifying one or more replacement content items and transmitting the one or more identified replacement content items to the client device for display in the presentation page in place of one or more of the plurality of content items.” Also see at least ¶ 7. ).
While Compain discloses the transmitting of feedback data regarding an affirmative act performed by the user from which an inference can be made relating to the one or more displayed advertisements, Compain does not appear to explicitly disclose during generation of an image corresponding to a content selected by a user, control the communication device to transmit identification numbers and exposure time information of each advertisement content included in an image including the obtained first advertisement content to the server.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Belvin teaches during generation of an image corresponding to a content selected by a user, control the communication device to transmit identification numbers and exposure time information of each advertisement content included in an image including the obtained first advertisement content to the server (Figures 3 and 6A. Also see at least ¶ 45 “The time at which the advertisement was presented to the consumer is recorded in a ‘date presented’ field 620 and a ‘time presented’ field 625.” Also see Figure 6A which shows the monitoring system 100 storing an advertising identifier in element 615, and advertisement exposure times in elements 620 and 625 that is obtained from the presentation message sent from the computing device 100.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the feedback data that is transmitted from the client device to the server as taught by Compain, to include the information on exposure time of the obtained first advertisement content and identification information corresponding to the obtained first advertisement as taught by Belvin, because doing so would enable the system to determine if a consumer expressed an interested in a particular advertisement (Belvin, ¶ 15). The combination would also enable the system to better targeted advertising content to consumers (Belvin, ¶¶ 21-22 and 24). The combination would also enable the system to track advertisements presented to consumers (Belvin, ¶ 17). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While Compain obtains an updated advertisement content, the combination of Compain/Belvin as modified above do not appear to explicitly teach store the obtained updated advertisement content in the memory.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mougenot teaches store the obtained updated advertisement content in the memory (¶ 7 “generating, by the computing device, the advertising creative display opportunity includes generating the advertising creative display opportunity on a desktop or home screen of the computing device.’ ¶ 13 “the method includes generating, by the ad decision server, second one or more generated advertising creatives based at least in part on a determination to update the one or more generated advertising creatives; and sending, by the ad decision server, to the computing device, second payload data, wherein the second payload data includes second advertising creative retrieval data for downloading the second one or more generated advertising creatives” ¶ 28 “When the application generates an advertising creative display opportunity at some later time (e.g., when the application is executing in the foreground and/or is visible to the user), the computing device already has one or more advertising creatives stored locally that can be displayed in the opportunity. Beneficially, because the computing device already has one or more advertising creatives stored locally, the application can have advertising creatives to populate advertising creative display opportunities when the computing device is disconnected from the internet and/or other networks. In some applications, advertising creatives can include more types of media (e.g., media that requires larger amounts of data) because the advertising creatives can be download in advance of the display opportunities. In some embodiments, application installation files associated with the advertising creative can be downloaded when the advertising creative is downloaded. Beneficially, because the computing device already has the application installation files stored locally, the application associated with the advertising creative can be installed from the computing device's memory. In some instances, this can happen faster than an application installation that involves downloading the application installation files at the time of the installation, which can result in a more fluid user experience.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the obtaining of the updated advertisement content as taught by the combination of Compain/Belvin as modified above, to include the step of storing the obtained updated advertisement content in the memory of the electronic apparatus as taught by Mougenot, because doing so would enable the computing device to display advertisements when the computing device is disconnected from the internet and/or other networks (Mougenot, ¶ 28). The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 10, Compain discloses further comprising:
a display (¶¶ 25 and 80. Also see at least Figure 5).
While the combination of Compain/Belvin obtain and display the first advertisement content, they do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the image including the obtained first advertisement content is a home screen output on the display, and the obtained first advertisement content is located in a predetermined area inside the home screen.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mougenot teaches wherein the image including the obtained first advertisement content is a home screen output on the display (¶¶ 7, 10, 28, 41, and 45), and
the obtained first advertisement content is located in a predetermined area inside the home screen (¶¶ 7, 10, 28, 41, and 45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the displaying of the first advertisement content as taught by the combination of Compain/Belvin as modified above, to display the obtained first advertisement content in a predetermined area inside the home screen as taught by Mougenot, because doing so would increase the likelihood that a user would see and interact with an advertisement. The combination would also lead to a higher engagement rate, higher sales for advertised products and/or services, and expand market reach. The combination is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhogal et al. (US 2016/0247180 A1) discloses a system and method for verifying a user’s exposure to advertisements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621