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
1. The following is a non-final, First Office Action on the merits. Claim 1-20 are pending.
Note:
2. Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 as a whole recites a combination of limitations that defines over prior art of record {the combination of Tsatsou et al; (US 2010/0281025 A1), Kushner; (US 2022/0309543 A1), Stein et al; (US 2014/0297739 A1), Mahto et al; (US 11,750,896 B1) and the other prior art of record teaches the claimed invention; however, it would be hind-sight reasoning to combine the individual elements disclosed in the prior-art in order to achieve Applicant's claimed invention}.
Note that claims 1-20 are rejected under 101 and double patenting below.
Double Patenting
3. Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable respectively over claims 1, 8 and 15 of US Patent 12,265,993 B2. Further, dependent claims {2, 9}; {3,10}; {4,17}; {5,12,18}; {6,13,19); and {7,14,20} of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable respectively over dependent claims {2, 9}; {3,10,16}; {4,17}; {5,12,18}; {6,13,19); and {7,14,20} of US Patent 12,265,993 B2.
In addition, Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 11,948,172 B2, in view of Tsatson et al; (US 2010/0281025 A1). In addition, dependent claims {2, 9}; {3,10}; {5,12,18}; {6,13,19); and {7,14,20} are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims {2, 9}; {3,10,16}; {5,12,18}; {6,13,19); and {7,14,20} of U.S. Patent 11,948,172 B2 respectively. See the table below.
Instant Application: case 19/082,855
Patent 12,265,993 B2
Patent 11,948,172 B2
Claims 1, 8 and 15: A computer-implemented method for creating dynamic banners, the computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, based on a user profile and by at least one computer processor, an ad request;
receiving, from an ad system, a target banner template;
generating, based on the user profile, a first call to a content recommendation system for a first set of recommended content assets for the target banner template;
selecting, based on receiving the first set of recommended content assets, a first content asset from the first set of recommended content assets, wherein the first content asset includes a first content representation;
generating, based on a comparison of metadata within the user profile to metadata of the first content asset, a second call to the content recommendation system for a second set of recommended content assets;
selecting, based on receiving the second set of recommended content assets and metadata associated with each of the second set of recommended content assets, a second content asset from the second set of recommended content assets, wherein the second content asset includes a second content representation;
stitching, within the target banner template, the first content representation and the second content representation to form a composite banner; and
rendering the composite banner on a display.
Claims 2 and 9: wherein the composite banner comprises an endemic banner displayable of a streaming media device.
Claims 3 and 10: wherein the streaming media device platform comprises an Over-the-Top (OTT) device.
Claims 4 and 17: wherein the stitching further comprises stitching a representation of a third content asset with the second content asset and the first content asset.
Claims 5, 12 and 18: wherein the second content asset and the third content asset are selected based on a closest match based on any of: ordering of the metadata in the user profile; highest frequency of common metadata; grouping of the metadata; avoiding a match with negative response metadata; a weighted metadata formulation; Machine Learning (ML); fuzzy logic, or neural networks.
Claims 6, 13 and 19: further comprising iteratively matching similar metadata of the second content asset and the third content asset to the metadata of the user profile.
Claims 7, 14 and 20. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the target banner template is selected based on any of: opening an application (App); executing a first-time view; subscribing to a service; resumption of watching targeted content; completion of watching targeted content; or completion of watching a sponsorship program.
Claims 1, 8 and 15: A computer-implemented method for creating dynamic banners, the computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, based on a user profile and by at least one computer processor, an ad request;
receiving, from an ad system, a target banner template;
generating, based on the user profile, a first call to a content recommendation system for a first set of recommended content assets for the target banner template;
selecting, based on receiving the first set of recommended content assets, a first content asset from the first set of recommended content assets;
generating, based on a comparison of metadata within the user profile to metadata of the first content asset, a second call to the content recommendation system for a second set of recommended content assets;
selecting, based on receiving the second set of recommended content assets, a second content asset from the second set of recommended content assets;
generating, based on a comparison of metadata within the user profile to metadata of the second content asset, a third call to the content recommendation system for a third set of recommended content assets;
selecting, based on receiving the third set of recommended content assets, a third content asset from the second set of recommended content assets;
stitching, within the target banner template, an image of the first content asset and an image of the third content asset to form a composite banner; and
rendering the composite banner on a display.
Claims 2 and 9: wherein the composite banner comprises an endemic banner displayable of a streaming media device.
Claims 3, 10 and 16: wherein the streaming media device platform comprises an Over-the-Top (OTT) device.
Claims 4 and 17: wherein the stitching further comprises stitching an image of the second content asset with the image of the first content assert and the image of the third content assert to form the composite banner
Claims 5, 12 and 18: wherein the second content asset and the third content asset are selected based on a closest match based on any of: ordering of the metadata in the user profile; highest frequency of common metadata; grouping of the metadata; avoiding a match with negative response metadata; a weighted metadata formulation; Machine Learning (ML); fuzzy logic, or neural networks.
Claims 6, 13 and 19: further comprising iteratively matching similar metadata of the second content asset and the third content asset to the metadata of the user profile.
Claims 7, 14 and 20. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the target banner template is selected based on any of: opening an application (App); executing a first-time view; subscribing to a service; resumption of watching targeted content; completion of watching targeted content; or completion of watching a sponsorship program.
Claims 1, 8 and 15: A computer implemented method for creating dynamic banners, the method comprising:
generating, based on a user profile and by a streaming media device platform, an ad request;
receiving, from an ad system, a target banner template;
generating, based on the user profile, a first call to a content recommendation system for recommended content assets for the target banner template;
receiving, from the content recommendation system, a recommended content asset;
{in view of Tsatson et al; (US 2010/0281025 A1) in at least Abstract, fig. 1 paras 0032-0047 in context with figs 2-3 paras 0048-0071}
generating, based on metadata of the received recommended content asset, a second call to a content provider system for one or more additional related content assets;
receiving, from the content provider system, the one or more additional related content assets;
{in view of Tsatson et al; (US 2010/0281025 A1) in at least Abstract, fig. 1 paras 0032-0047 in context with figs 2-3 paras 0048-0071}
matching similar metadata of the one or more additional related content assets to metadata of the user profile;
selecting, based on the matching, one or more of the additional related content assets as matching content;
stitching the target banner template, one or more of the recommended content assets and the matching content into the target banner template to form a composite banner; and
rendering the composite banner on a media device display.
Claims 2 and 9: wherein the composite banner comprises an endemic banner.
Claims 3, 10 and 16: wherein the streaming media device platform comprises an Over-the-Top (OTT) device.
Claims 5, 12 and 18: wherein the selecting one or more of the additional related content assets as matching content further comprising selecting a closest match based on any of: ordering of the metadata in the user profile; highest frequency of common metadata; grouping of the metadata; avoiding a match with negative response metadata; a weighted metadata formulation, wherein metadata are provided selected variable weighting; Machine Learning (ML); fuzzy logic, or neural networks.
Claims 6, 13 and 19: further comprising iteratively matching similar metadata of the one or more additional related content assets to the metadata of the user profile.
Claims 7, 14 and 20. The method of claim 5, wherein the target banner template is selected based on any of: opening an application (App); executing a first-time view; subscribing to a service; resumption of watching targeted content; completion of watching targeted content; or completion of watching a sponsorship program.
In summary, claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 12,265,993 B2 teach all the features of claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application as indicated in the table above. Although claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 12,265,993 B2 has additional underlined features (bold limitations in the table above) such as {e.g., generating, based on a comparison of metadata within the user profile to metadata of the second content asset, a third call to the content recommendation system for a third set of recommended content assets; selecting, based on receiving the third set of recommended content assets, a third content asset from the second set of recommended content assets; stitching, within the target banner template, an image of the first content asset and an image of the third content asset to form a composite banner}; however, it has been held that deleting elements when the function of element is not desired is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 Section II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 12,265,993 B2 the to arrive at the claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application because the person of ordinary skill would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Further, dependent claims {2, 9}; {3,10,16}; {4,17}; {5,12,18}; {6,13,19); and {7,14,20} of US Patent 12,265,993 B2 respectively teach all the features of dependent claims {2, 9}; {3,10}; {4,17}; {5,12,18}; {6,13,19); and {7,14,20} of the instant application as indicated in the table above.
In addition, claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 11,948,172 B2, in view of Tsatson et al; (US 2010/0281025 A1) teach all the features of claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application as indicated in the table above. Although claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 11,948,172 B2 in view of Tsatson et al; (US 2010/0281025 A1) has additional underlined features (bold limitations in the table above) such as {e.g., matching similar metadata of the one or more additional related content assets to metadata of the user profile; selecting, based on the matching, one or more of the additional related content assets as matching content}; however, it has been held that deleting elements when the function of element is not desired is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 Section II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 11,948,172 B2, in view of Tsatson et al; (US 2010/0281025 A1) to arrive at the claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application because the person of ordinary skill would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Further, dependent claims {2, 9}; {3,10,16}; {5,12,18}; {6,13,19); and {7,14,20} of US Patent 11,948,172 B2 respectively teach all the features of dependent claims {2, 9}; {3,10}; {5,12,18}; {6,13,19); and {7,14,20} of the instant application as indicated in the table above.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention:
Dependent claim 3 (dependency of claim 1) recites “wherein the streaming media device platform…..”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the streaming media device platform” in the claim. Appropriated correction is required.
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.
5. The claimed invention (Claims 1-20) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Processes”, which has/have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
6. Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a statutory Category?
Claim 1-7: Yes. These are methods, and therefore are directed to the statutory class of process.
Claim 8-14: Yes. These claims are system which recites at least one processor coupled to memory and configured to perform operations…; and….., therefore is directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
Claims 15-20: Yes. These claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is interpreted as a system because it recites at least one computing device to perform…., and therefore are directed to the statutory class of machine.
7. Step 2A prong 1, Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B:
Independent claim 8 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to an abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Processes”:
Limitations 1-6 of generating, based on a user profile and, an ad request (limitation 1); receiving, a target banner template (limitation 2); generating, based on the user profile, a first call to a content recommendation entity for a first set of recommended content assets for the target banner template (limitation 3); selecting, based on receiving the first set of recommended content assets, a first content asset from the first set of recommended content assets, wherein the first content asset includes a first content representation (limitation 4); generating, based on a comparison of metadata within the user profile to metadata of the first
content asset, a second call to the content recommendation entity for a second set of recommended content assets (limitation 5); selecting, based on receiving the second set of recommended content assets and metadata associated with each of the second set of recommended content assets, a second content asset from the second set of recommended content assets, wherein the second content asset includes a second content representation (limitation 6); and stitching, within the target banner template, the first content representation and the second content representation to form a composite banner (limitation 7) fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of commercial or legal interactions (include subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
Further, in claim 8, the limitation 6 mentioned above of “selecting, based on receiving the second set of recommended content assets and metadata associated with each of the second set of recommended content assets, a second content asset from the second set of recommended content assets, wherein the second content asset includes a second content representation” also falls within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a human being can observing/evaluating/analyzing the received second set of recommended content assets and metadata associated with each of the second set of recommended content assets in order to select a second content asset from the second set of recommended content assets.
Independent claim 8, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites underlined additional elements (i.e., a memory; at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform…; ) to perform abstract steps/limitations 1-7 mentioned above. The additional element(s) in all of the steps is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using a generic computer component(s) (i.e., a memory; at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform .…); thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 8, the limitations 2 and 8 of “receiving, from an ad system, a target banner template” via at least one processor ( limitation 2); and “rendering the composite banner on a display” via at least one processor (limitation 8) are merely receiving data/gathering data; and transmitting data/displaying data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, they does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Also, the additional elements in limitations 2, 3 and 5 of (e.g., an ad system, a/the content recommendation system) are merely sources where information are being received from, which is considered as general link to technological environment; thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) above does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components (i.e., a memory; at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform…. ) to perform the steps/limitations 1-7 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. see MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above-mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Independent claim 8 (step 2B): The additional elements in claim 8 (i.e., a memory; at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform .….) is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the underlined additional elements “i.e., a memory; at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform . …” is/are amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 1-7 mentioned above; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 8, the limitations 2 and 8 of “receiving, from an ad system, a target banner template” via at least one processor ( limitation 2); and “rendering the composite banner on a display” via at least one processor (limitation 8) are merely receiving data/gathering data; and transmitting data/displaying data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Also, the additional elements in limitations 2, 3 and 5 of (e.g., an ad system, a/the content recommendation system) are merely sources where information are being received from, which is considered as general link to technological environment; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When revaluating the limitations 2 and 8 above of “receiving, from an ad system, a target banner template” via at least one processor ( limitation 2); and “rendering the composite banner on a display” via at least one processor (limitation 8) in step 2B here, the receiving data/gathering data and transmitting data/displaying data are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The use of generic computer to store information, transmit/display information/data and receive/gather information/data through an unspecified generic computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, and is/are considered as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Thus, evidences has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.07 (a) (III). Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above additional steps/additional elements/additional limitations do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As per independent claims 1 and 15: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same/similar analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, a method claim 1 and a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 15 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same/similar reasons as the system claim(s) 8. The underlined components (i.e., a ad system; a content recommendation system; a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform…..) described in independent claim 1 and/or 15 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. They are merely using as tools to implement the identified abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or are general link to technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)); and or insignificant extra solution activities ( MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that in dependent claims {3,10}, the additional elements (e.g., the/a streaming media device platform comprises an Over-the Top (OTT) device” are recited as general link to technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)); thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combinations adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure
8. The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsatsou et al; (US 20100281025 A1), wherein teaches A method of generating recommendations for content items comprises providing a domain ontology where concepts are characterized by a term vector with terms and associated weights. Associated term sets, each of which comprises a set of terms that characterize a content item, are further provided. A concept set is generated for each associated term set by determining the concepts of the domain ontology that match the terms of the associated term set. In addition, a user profile for a user is provided where the user profile comprises at least some of the concepts of the ontology coupled with preference weights. Recommendations for content items are generated based on the plurality of associated concept sets and the user profile. The invention may allow improved and/or facilitated generation of recommendations from text based characterizing data.
Kushner et al (US 2022/0309543 A1), wherein teaches A provider computing system includes an image database structured to store an image relating to a user, an advertisement template database structured to store a plurality of advertisement templates, a tagging circuit structured to augment the image in the image database with one or more image attribute tags and augment each of the plurality of advertisement templates with a template attribute tag, a customization circuit coupled to the tagging circuit, the customization circuit structured to determine a match between the image and a first advertisement template of the plurality of advertisement templates based on the image attribute tags and the template attribute tags for the first advertisement template and integrate the image into the first advertisement template to generate a customized advertisement, and an advertisement selection circuit structured to cause the customized advertisement to be provided to the user.
Stein et al (US 2014/0297739 A1), wherein teaches a method includes querying a social graph of a social-networking system for social content associated with one or more users of the social-networking system and accessing a selection by a user of one or more entities on which displayed media content is to be based. The method further includes determining, using the social content, recommended media content according to the selected one or more entities and providing the recommended media content for display on a display device. The social graph includes multiple nodes and edges connecting the nodes, the nodes including user nodes that are each associated with a particular user of the social-networking system.
Mahto et al; (US 11,750,896 B1), wherein teaches Disclosed herein are system, apparatus, article of manufacture, method and/or computer program product embodiments, and/or combinations and sub-combinations thereof, for utilizing a content recommendation system powering a streaming media publisher channel to enhance an ad creative being shown to the user via awareness or performance campaigns. This method allows the platform to present the most relevant Machine Language (ML) personalized in-channel content to the publisher platform users in endemic banners that run on the platform which then correspondingly helps drive user reach. An example embodiment operates by implementing personalized content banners that may act as a hook for channel users opening their streaming device, both active and lapsed, to enter back into the channel.
Huber et al; (US 7,979,877 B2), wherein teaches Disclosed is a process for an advertising bidding system in which advertisers can bid on advertising time slots or enhanced ads that can be inserted in either prerecorded or live television programming. A high degree of flexibility is provided by allowing embedded ads to be purchased and displayed in a very short time period. This allows TV broadcasters to increase revenues and allows advertisers to have more flexibility in advertising. Objects can be inserted in the display video broadcast using enhancements such as by using mark-up language overlay pages or by video combination techniques. The effect of these ads can be evaluated for advertising campaigns.
Scheer, (US 2015/0105145 A1), wherein teaches One or more first devices may determine a first content file associated with viewing history information of a particular user account; determine one or more second content files that are related to the particular content file; generate a game that includes elements from the particular content file and the one or more second content files; provide the game for display on a second device within a user interface associated with a gaming application; and provide information associated with the particular content file based on providing the game for display on the second device.
Also see other references in PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuy Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4585 and fax number is 571-273-4585. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30 am to 5: 00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The FAX 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.
/THUY N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622.
Prosecution Insights