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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, the claims recite, in part, receiving an advertisement request comprising an application identifier and a device identifier; obtaining, based on the device identifier, a target advertisement creative from a preset advertisement creative library that corresponds to the application identifier and that is accessible, wherein the target advertisement creative is a display style of a target advertisement on an advertisement slot of an application to which the application identifier belongs; obtaining, based on the target advertisement creative and the device identifier, a target advertisement material from a preset material library, wherein the target advertisement material comprises one or more of a picture, a video, a text, and a link; splicing, the target advertisement material based on the target advertisement creative to obtain the target advertisement; and delivering the target advertisement to the advertisement slot.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites delivering advertising based on an advertising request, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of first terminal device (claims 1, 8, 15), cloud server (claims 1, 8, 15), device (claim 8), memory (claim 8), one or more processors (claims 8, 15), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, obtaining, splicing, and delivering) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using first terminal device (claims 1, 8, 15), cloud server (claims 1, 8, 15), device (claim 8), memory (claim 8), one or more processors (claims 8, 15), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification paragraph 0169); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 appear to merely limit determining advertisement creatives based on an audience tag, determining an advertisement creative with a highest effective cost per mille, adjusting the audience tag based on delivery information, and updating a creative library based on an advertisement creative on a second device, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The first terminal device (claims 1, 8, 15), cloud server (claims 1, 8, 15), device (claim 8), memory (claim 8), one or more processors (claims 8, 15), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of receiving, obtaining, splicing, and delivering, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the first terminal device (claims 1, 8, 15), cloud server (claims 1, 8, 15), device (claim 8), memory (claim 8), one or more processors (claims 8, 15), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levkovitz (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0088851) in view of Dunn (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0022464).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, Levkovitz teaches receiving an advertisement request comprising an application identifier and a device identifier of a first terminal device (Paragraph 0147, content client creates request comprising a plurality of identifiers, including application and device identifiers); obtaining, based on the device identifier, a target advertisement creative from a preset advertisement creative library that corresponds to the application identifier, wherein the target advertisement creative is a display style of a target advertisement on an advertisement slot of an application to which the application identifier belongs (Paragraphs 0080-0081, content items repository is an advertisement creative library, advertisement is obtained based on data of the device and data related to the application, advertisements meant to go into a specific applications are considered to be of a “display style” for an advertisement slot of that application); obtaining, based on the target advertisement creative and the device identifier, a target advertisement material (Paragraphs 0165-0166, criteria to reformat an ad better accommodate capabilities equates to target advertisement material); splicing, the target advertisement material based on the target advertisement creative to obtain the target advertisement (Paragraphs 0165-0166, re-formatting/repackaging using criteria equates to “splicing”); and delivering the target advertisement to the advertisement slot (Paragraphs 0085, 0167, 0169, content presented within application).
Levkovitz does not appear to specify obtaining, based on the target advertisement creative and the device identifier, a target advertisement material from a preset material library, wherein the target advertisement material comprises one or more of a picture, a video, a text, and a link. Dunn, however, teaches obtaining, based on the target advertisement creative and the device identifier, a target advertisement material from a preset material library, wherein the target advertisement material comprises one or more of a picture, a video, a text, and a link (Paragraphs 0032-0036, obtaining elements based on advertisement creative and device specifics, 0025, images, videos, text); and splicing, the target advertisement material based on the target advertisement creative to obtain the target advertisement (Paragraph 0036, combining elements to form the advertisement). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to splice elements of an advertisement based on device capabilities in order to be able to supply appropriate advertising to any possible device regardless of device limitations.
Levkovitz and Dunn do not appear to specify information that is accessible on a cloud server. However, cloud servers have been old and well known long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. For example, Amazon Web Services introduced a cloud storage service, Amazon S3, in 2006. Another example is Alibaba Cloud, which is a cloud storage service that was launched in 2009. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to access information through a cloud service since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, Levkovitz teaches obtaining, based on the device identifier, an audience tag from a user information big data platform (Paragraphs 0027, 0147, user information equates to “audience tags”); and determining, from the preset advertisement creative library, the target advertisement creative corresponding to the audience tag (Paragraph 0027).
Regarding claims 7, 14, Levkovitz teaches obtaining at least one advertisement creative that is on a second terminal device; and updating the preset advertisement creative library based on the at least one advertisement creative (Paragraph 0087, second terminal device is an advertiser computer that initially supplies advertisements to be distributed, as new ads are supplied the ad repository is updated).
Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levkovitz (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0088851) in view of Dunn (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0022464), and further in view of Little (U.S. Pub No. 2008/0294523).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, Levkovitz and Dunn do not appear to specify when a plurality of advertisement creatives in the preset advertisement creative library matches the audience tag, determining, as the target advertisement creative, an advertisement creative with a highest effective cost per mille in the plurality of advertisement creatives. However, Little teaches regardless of whether a plurality of advertisement creatives in the preset advertisement creative library matches the audience tag, determining, as the target advertisement creative, an advertisement creative with a highest effective cost per mille from a plurality of advertisements (Paragraph 0056). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select an advertisement that has the highest eCPM in order to make the more possible revenue from presenting the selected advertisement.
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Levkovitz and Dunn do not appear to specify when no advertisement creative that matches the audience tag exists in the preset advertisement creative library, determining, as the target advertisement creative, an advertisement creative with a highest effective cost per mille in the preset advertisement creative library. However, Little teaches regardless of whether a plurality of advertisement creatives in the preset advertisement creative library matches the audience tag, determining, as the target advertisement creative, an advertisement creative with a highest effective cost per mille from a plurality of advertisements (Paragraph 0056). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select an advertisement that has the highest eCPM in order to make the more possible revenue from presenting the selected advertisement.
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Levkovitz and Dunn do not appear to specify determining, as the target advertisement creative, an advertisement creative with a highest effective cost per mille in the preset advertisement creative library. However, Little teaches determining, as the target advertisement creative, an advertisement creative with a highest effective cost per mille from a plurality of advertisements (Paragraph 0056). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select an advertisement that has the highest eCPM in order to make the more possible revenue from presenting the selected advertisement.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levkovitz (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0088851) in view of Dunn (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0022464), and further in view of Dmitriev (U.S. Pub No. 2008/0092159).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, Levkovitz teaches obtaining delivery information of the target advertisement on the first terminal device, wherein the delivery information comprises a browsing duration and/or a click-through rate of the target advertisement (Paragraph 0143).
Levkovitz and Dunn do not appear to specify adjusting, based on the delivery information, the audience tag corresponding to the device identifier. However, Dmitriev teaches adjusting, based on the delivery information, the audience tag corresponding to the device identifier (Paragraph 0135, user profile is adjusted based on delivery information). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust targeting information associated with a user based on delivery information in order to better target future advertisements to a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following reference has been cited to further show the state of the art with respect to targeting advertising based on device and application identifiers:
U.S. Pub No. 2016/0260136 to Schwartz
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621