DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
In response filed on June 17, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1-4 and 6-8; added claims 9-13; and cancelled claim 5. Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
v Applicant has amended claim 6 such that it no longer recites limitations that invoke special interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
v Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues that
1) “These features represent a particular technical solution to a technical problem how to customize advertisement lists based on application-specific configuration data stored in a structured data table…these specific technical features impose meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea. The extraction setting table is a specific data structure that stores per- application configuration data, and the claimed processing steps use this data structure to perform application-type-specific filtering and ordering. This is not merely "applying" an abstract idea to a generic computer, but rather represents a specific technical architecture for dynamically generating customized content based on application-specific configuration data”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
Customizing advertisement lists is not a technical problem. That the advertisement lists are provided for display in a software application does not make the underlying problem any more technical in nature. It serves merely to limit the abstract idea to a particular context (i.e., a particular technical environment). Further, Examiner disagrees that the “extraction setting table” amounts to an additional element. This is simply a collection/table of information. There is no specific technical architecture here, other than describing what information is being stored and used (e.g., rules associated with advertisement locations (e.g., applications) that describe with product categories are eligible for including in the list and perhaps ranking/display priorities). It is further noted that Applicant’s claims merely require use of information based on information within this table, and do not even require the whole table to be a part of Applicant’s system.
Applicant specifically argues that
2) “The claims as amended are analogous to the eligible claim in USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 34 (System for Filtering Internet Content), which was based on BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In BASCOM, the claim was directed to filtering content (an abstract idea), but was found eligible because it recited "the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user" where the filtering tool was able to "identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account." The claim was found to present a "technology-based solution" rather than an "abstract-idea-based solution." Similarly here, claim 1 as amended recites a specific technical architecture: an extraction setting table that associates each application identification with a customizable exclusion condition defining a category of products or services to be excluded based on the type of the application. Just as the BASCOM claim associated individual user accounts with customizable filtering schemes and filtering elements, claim 1 associates individual application identifications with customizable extraction setting information including exclusion conditions. This is not merely "applying" the abstract idea of advertising on a generic computer, but rather a "technology-based solution" that overcomes the disadvantages of prior art advertisement distribution systems that did not take into consideration the type of application when filtering advertisements..”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
The specification in Bascom specifically identified a technical problem being addressed by an unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements (specifically, the installation of the remote ISP server and the eligibility analysis found that the claims recited the unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements and required filtering to be performed at remotely. The instant specification does not identify an analogous technical problem (e.g., associated with generating lists pages of advertisements). Applicant’s specification also does not suggest the invention is directed to an unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements (e.g., an unconventional physical device used to exclude certain types of advertisements from the list). That the instant invention involves filtering information does not make Applicant’s invention analogous to Example 34.
Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”
Per MPEP 2106.05(a) “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (using a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and automatically issue instructions is a form of “electronic recordkeeping” and using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and automatically issue instructions does not improve the functioning of the computer itself.
Applicant specifically argues that
3) “Even if the claims were considered under Step 2B, the ordered combination of elements provides significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The specific combination of an extraction setting table associating application identifications with category-based exclusion conditions, together with the ordered steps of excluding advertisements satisfying the condition, determining display order of non-excluded advertisements,.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s third argument.
Excluding certain advertisements from a list based on rules is part of the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees that the “extraction setting table” amounts to an additional element. This is simply a collection/table of information. There is no specific technical architecture here, other than describing what information is being stored and used (e.g., rules associated with advertisement locations (e.g., applications) that describe with product categories are eligible for including in the list and perhaps ranking/display priorities).
See In re Smith, No. 2022-1310, 2022 WL 4112730, *3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2022 – “But utility is not the test for patent eligibility under the Supreme Court’s cases.”).
SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are ‘[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’ but that is not enough for eligibility.”) (citation omitted).
See In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x at 638 (“[T]he fact that an abstract idea may have beneficial uses does not mean that claims embodying the abstract idea are rendered patent eligible.”).
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1-4 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered, but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
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.
v Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 7 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1-4 and 9-12 is/are drawn to devices (i.e., a machine/manufacture), claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are drawn to systems (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 8 is/are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-4 and 6-13 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 6, 7, and 8) recites/describes the following steps;
acquire an application identification together with a list request for requesting a list of advertisements, the application identification being information for identifying an application…, and
based on extraction setting information associated with the acquired application identification and used for selection of the advertisements and determination of a display order, wherein the extraction setting information includes a condition for an advertisement of the advertisements to be excluded from the list page, the extraction setting information being stored in an extraction setting table that associates the application identification with the condition, the condition defining a category of products or services to be excluded based on a type of the application, exclude the advertisement satisfying the condition from the advertisements to be displayed, determine the display order of advertisements not excluded from the advertisements to be displayed, and generate a list page including a plurality of objects representing summaries of the advertisements arranged in the determined display order
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process for selecting advertisements to include in a list page and generating the list page comprising the advertisements. More specifically, the process comprises acquiring an application identification together with a list request for requesting a list of advertisements, the application identification being information for identifying an application sending the list request, and based on extraction setting information associated with the acquired application identification and used for selection of the advertisements and determination of a display order, wherein the extraction setting information includes a condition for an advertisement of the advertisements to be excluded from the list page, the extraction setting information being stored in an extraction setting table that associates the application identification with the condition, the condition defining a category of products or services to be excluded based on a type of the application, exclude the advertisement satisfying the condition from the advertisements to be displayed, determine the display order of advertisements not excluded from the advertisements to be displayed, and generate a list page including a plurality of objects representing summaries of the advertisements arranged in the determined display order. This process amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 6, 7, and 8 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the dependent claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“a notification device comprising at least one memory configured to store program code; and at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code, the program code comprising: list request acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to… and list page generation code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claim 1)
“a notification system comprising the notification device…and a terminal device comprising at least one terminal memory configured to store terminal program code; and at least one terminal processor configured to operate as instructed by the terminal program code, the terminal program code comprising: request transmission code configured to cause at least one of the at least one terminal processor to… display code configured to cause at least one of the at least one terminal processor to…by the notification device…” (claim 6)
“by a computer…by the computer… by the computer… by the computer… by the computer…” (claim 7)
“a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform processing…” (claim 8)
“an application sending the list request” (claims 1, 6, 7, and 8)
“wherein the program code further comprises: user identification acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to… and display order determination code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claim 3)
“wherein the program code further comprises: user identification acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to… and action history acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claim 4)
“…wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claims 9-11)
“…wherein the program code further comprises advertisement database code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claim 12)
“wherein the display code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one terminal processor to…on a screen of the application by processing through a web view for displaying web information in the application” (claim 13)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a notification device comprising at least one memory configured to store program code; and at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code, the program code comprising: list request acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to… and list page generation code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claim 1) or a notification system comprising the notification device…and a terminal device comprising at least one terminal memory configured to store terminal program code; andat least one terminal processor configured to operate as instructed by the terminal program code, the terminal program code comprising: request transmission code configured to cause at least one of the at least one terminal processor to… display code configured to cause at least one of the at least one terminal processor to…by the notification device…” (claim 6) or “by a computer…by the computer… by the computer… by the computer… by the computer…” (claim 7) or “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform processing…” (claim 8) and/or “wherein the program code further comprises: user identification acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to… and display order determination code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claim 3) and/or “wherein the program code further comprises: user identification acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to… and action history acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claim 4) and/or “…wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claims 9-11) and/or “…wherein the program code further comprises advertisement database code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claim 12) and/or “wherein the display code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one terminal processor to…” (claim 13) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these “additional” elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., the published specification at paragraphs [0021] “terminal devices and a notification device 200…connected…via…the internet…each of the terminal devices 100 is…a so-called computer…such as a smartphone, a tablet computer, a personal computer…”, [0032] “notification device 200 includes one or a plurality of server computers”, [0080]-[0083] “The notification device 200 according to the above described embodiment can be implemented by using a general computer instead of a dedicated device”, see also [0048]-[0055]). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “an application sending the list request” (claims 1, 6, 7, and 8) and/or“…on a screen of the application by processing through a web view for displaying web information in the application” (claim 13) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally via software applications, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces via software applications. It also serves to limit the abstract idea to application-based forms of advertising. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recited element(s) of “acquire an application identification together with a list request for requesting a list of advertisements, the application identification being information for identifying an application sending the list request” (claims 1, 6, 7, and 8), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea;). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, and because such data gathering steps have long been held to be insignificant pre/post-solution activity. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s published specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process because doing so can help ensure advertisements are appropriate for a user which can increase advertising effectiveness, and because doing so can provide advertiser’s with control over how their advertisements are targeted which can increase advertiser satisfaction (see, for example, Applicant’s published disclosure at paragraphs [0005] & [0012]). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved process for selecting/targeting advertisements).
Dependent claim 2 fails to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claim 2 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 2 recites “wherein the advertisements include notification information for informing a campaign granting a benefit to a user on a condition that the user takes a predetermined action”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 2. This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. With respect to the other dependent claims not specifically listed here - each of the limitations/elements recited in these dependent claims other than those identified as being “additional” elements above (at the beginning of the Prong One analysis), are further part of the abstract idea encompassed by each respective dependent claim (i.e. it should be understood that these limitations are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a notification device comprising at least one memory configured to store program code; and at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code, the program code comprising: list request acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to… and list page generation code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claim 1) or a notification system comprising the notification device…and a terminal device comprising at least one terminal memory configured to store terminal program code; and at least one terminal processor configured to operate as instructed by the terminal program code, the terminal program code comprising: request transmission code configured to cause at least one of the at least one terminal processor to… display code configured to cause at least one of the at least one terminal processor to…by the notification device…” (claim 6) or “by a computer…by the computer… by the computer… by the computer… by the computer…” (claim 7) or “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform processing…” (claim 8) and/or “wherein the program code further comprises: user identification acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to… and display order determination code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claim 3) and/or “wherein the program code further comprises: user identification acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to… and action history acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claim 4) and/or “…wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claims 9-11) and/or “…wherein the program code further comprises advertisement database code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to…” (claim 12) and/or “wherein the display code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one terminal processor to…” (claim 13) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “an application sending the list request” (claims 1, 6, 7, and 8) and/or“…on a screen of the application by processing through a web view for displaying web information in the application” (claim 13) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited element(s) of “acquire an application identification together with a list request for requesting a list of advertisements, the application identification being information for identifying an application sending the list request” (claims 1, 6, 7, and 8), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional element(s), taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of advertising. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Dependent claim 2 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claim 2 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 9-13 are 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 the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
v Claim 1 is directed to a “a notification device comprising: at least one memory configured to store program code; and at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code, the program code comprising…,” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear whether all general-purpose computers (e.g., because all general-purpose computers comprise memory “configured to store” such program) would anticipate the claimed invention, or whether Applicant’s language limits the claim scope to only those systems comprising memory that actually has stored thereon this program code. Therefore, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly and distinctly claim the subject matter which the application regards as the invention. For the purpose of Examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim language as requiring the memory to actually have stored thereon the computer-executable program code. Claim 6 also requires this language (the system comprises the device according to claim 1) and further similarly recites “at least one terminal memory configured to store terminal program code; and at least one terminal processor configured to operate as instructed by the terminal program code, the terminal program code comprising”, which has the same issue as the “configured to store” language recited in claim 1.
Each of dependent claims 2-4 and 9-13 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on one of these claims.
v Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 recite "an advertisement of the advertisement to be excluded from the list page…exclude the advertisement satisfying the condition from the advertisements to be displayed…" There is insufficient antecedent basis for both underlined limitations in the claims. The claims make previous reference to acquisition of a list request for requesting a list of advertisements, extraction setting information used for selection of the advertisements and that includes a condition of an advertisement of the advertisements to be excluded. However, none of these recitations provides sufficiently clear antecedent basis for “the advertisements to be displayed” or “the advertisement satisfying the condition” from among these. Furthermore, prior reference to “list page generation code” does not provide sufficient antecedent basis for “the list page” itself. For the purpose of examination, the limitations “based on extraction setting information…used for selection of the advertisements and determination of a display order, wherein the extraction setting information includes a condition for an advertisement of the advertisements to be excluded from the list page, the extraction setting information being stored in an extraction setting table that associates the application identification with the condition, the condition defining a category of products or services to be excluded based on a type of the application, exclude the advertisement satisfying the condition from the advertisements to be displayed, determine the display order of advertisements not excluded from the advertisements to be displayed, and generate a list page including a plurality of objects representing summaries of the advertisements arranged in the determined display order” will be interpreted as being “based on extraction setting information…used for selection of [[the]] advertisements for the list of advertisements and determination of a display order, wherein the extraction setting information includes a condition for an advertisements of [[the]] advertisements selected for the list of advertisements to be excluded from the list [[page]] of advertisements, the extraction setting information being stored in an extraction setting table that associates the application identification with the condition, the condition defining a category of advertised products or services to be excluded based on a type of the application, exclude [[the]]an advertisement satisfying the condition from [[the]] advertisements selected for the list of advertisements selected for the list of advertisements plurality of objects representing summaries of the advertisements not excluded from the advertisements selected for the list of advertisements arranged in the determined display order.”
Each of the dependent claims are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on one of these claims.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
v Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2012/0036003, February 9, 2012 - hereinafter "Tong”) in view of Kang et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2016/0162939, June 9, 2016 - hereinafter "Kang”) in view of Barry et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2004/0019523 January 29, 2004 - hereinafter "Barry”)
With respect to claims 1, 6, 7, and 8, Tong teaches a notification device (claim 1) ([0009] “reward system, running on a server”, [0028] “reward machine…servers”, [0096]) , a notification system (claim 6) ([0009] “reward system, running on a server”, [0028] “reward machine…servers”, [0096]), a notification method (claim 7), and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform processing (claim 8) ([0082] “embodiments may be implemented using a computer program product, e.g., a computer program tangibly embodied in an information carrier, e.g., in a machine-readable medium”, [0086]-[0089]) comprising;
at least one memory configured to store program code (claim 1) ([0082] “embodiments may be implemented using a computer program product, e.g., a computer program tangibly embodied in an information carrier, e.g., in a machine-readable medium”, [0086]-[0089])
at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code, the program code comprising (claim 1) ([0078] “server computer system…a processor or a group of processors”, [0087] “The example computer system 1000 includes at least one processor 1002”)
list request acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire an application identification together with a call causing retrieval of a list of advertisements, the application identification being information for identifying an application sending the call, and ([0020]-[0021] “when an application…executes, a call is made to the reward machine…call may be in the form of a ping initiated by software code in the application… may deliver an advertisement to the client device 202 executing the application…display of the advertisement…an offer related to the application being executed on the client device…” – the reward platform server (i.e., notification device) receives a call from an application executing on a client device that includes information identifying the application that sends the call/ping and responsively may transmit one or more advertisements/offers, [0024]-[0025] “the ping may indicate…the client device 202, as identified by its Udid…and the AppID of the application being executed…” – pings/calls comprise an AppID (application identification) indicating the app from which the call/ping is received, [0043] “Communication module 504 may operate in conjunction with execution detection module 502 to push data, for example, a ping, to the reward system upon execution of the application 106 or initiation and completion of an action within the application 106…. ping may include identifying information…identifier (e.g., Udid) of the client device 102 or an account identifier (e.g., user name, telephone number) associated with a user of the client device 102…identifying information about the application”, [0047]-[0048[ “may select and generate referral offers to be transmitted to the client device…list of offers optimized for the application being executed…The list of offers may comprise a list of applications incentivized for download by the user, with the incentive being virtual currency or a virtual good. The list of offers also may include one or more actions capable of being performed within one or more applications, with different actions being awarded differing incentives….may use advertisements from a variety of advertising networks… different advertisements being offered depending on the application being executed by the client device 102….may be chosen for delivery using an ad order algorithm that optimizes advertisements to be delivered by one or more predetermined metrics. In an example embodiment, the effective cost per mille for each advertisement may be considered in determining which advertisement to deliver. In some embodiments, the advertisements may be aggregated and listed on…user interface in the form of an offer wall” – therefore a list of advertisements (e.g., via an offer wall) are retrieved in response to the call/ping and based on the application being executed (i.e., using application identification received with the call/ping, [0049] “application identifiers corresponding to every application executed by the mobile device 102”, [0068] “a ping and a transmission of identifying information (if the identifying information is not included in the ping itself) to the reward system 508. The identifying information may include user identifying information, such as an account identifier (e.g., telephone number, user name)…and the app ID”)
list page generation code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to, based on extraction setting information associated with the acquired application identification and used for selection of the advertisements and determination of a display order…determine the display order of advertisements not excluded from the advertisements to be displayed, and generate a list page including a plurality of objects representing summaries of the advertisements arranged in the determined display order ([0027] “application developer may desire to engage a user of an application…incentivizing the user to perform targeted actions within the application…register an application action that it wishes to incentivize…name and description of the action to be performed within the application…bid price”, [0046]-[0048[ “reward system…may select and generate referral offers to be transmitted to the client device…list of offers optimized for the application being executed…The list of offers may comprise a list of applications incentivized for download by the user, with the incentive being virtual currency or a virtual good. The list of offers also may include one or more actions capable of being performed within one or more applications, with different actions being awarded differing incentives….may use advertisements from a variety of advertising networks…different advertisements being offered depending on the application being executed by the client device 102….may be chosen for delivery using an ad order algorithm that optimizes advertisements to be delivered by one or more predetermined metrics. In an example embodiment, the effective cost per mille for each advertisement may be considered in determining which advertisement to deliver. In some embodiments, the advertisements may be aggregated and listed on…user interface in the form of an offer wall. The advertisements may be sortable or…filtered by…incentive... For example, if the user has installed the application previously via the reward machine(s) (e.g., as part of a pay-per-install offer), the offer to install the application may be filtered out and not shown to the user again.” – therefore the reward system generates a list page of advertisements/offers (offer wall) including a plurality of advertisements/offers (i.e., a plurality of objects representing summaries of the advertisements) in a determined order that is based on the identification of the application being executed as well as other metrics and/or bid prices such a cost per mille (i.e., based on “extraction setting information” that is associated with the acquired application identification and that is used to select the advertisements and to determine their display order), [0053] “client device…offer wall (e.g., user interface…containing referral offers”, [0067] “bid amount may be actual currency…may be converted into virtual currency to be awarded to the user. The virtual currency may be redeemable or applicable to the application in which the action is being performed” – therefore the display order of the advertisements in the offer wall may be according to the virtual currency reward amount because this may directly correspond to the bid amount (cost per mille) used to select/order the ads/offers), [0071] “The offer may include a title of the action, one or more steps needed to be performed to complete the offer, and an incentive offered for performing the offer. The offer is caused to be displayed on a client device 102 to the user, for example, on an offer wall contained in…user interface” and per [0044] “targeted pay-per-action events may include but are not limited to logging in or checking in to an application account, watching videos, taking surveys, performing specific actions within the application, and accessing particular advertisements” – the ads/offers displayed in the offer wall are objects describing the benefit the user may receive and describing the steps (e.g., watching a particular ad, taking a particular survey) the user must perform (i.e., objects representing summaries of the advertisements, consistent with Applicant’s published disclosure at [0033]-[0034])
wherein the extraction setting information includes a condition for an advertisement of the advertisements to be excluded from the list page…exclude the advertisement satisfying the condition from the advertisements to be displayed ([0048]-[0049] “The advertisement offered as a referral may be chosen for delivery using an ad order algorithm that optimizes advertisements to be delivered…The advertisements may be sortable or capable of being filtered by application, action, incentive, Udid, and so forth. For example, if the user has installed the application previously via the reward machine(s) (e.g., as part of a pay-per-install offer), the offer to install the application may be filtered out and not shown to the user again. The application use/install module 512 may monitor and track application usage and installation. The application use/install module 512 may store the client device's Udid whenever a referral sends a user to the app store for a specific application that the client device 102 has not previously run. The client device's Udid may be stored with application identifiers corresponding to every application executed by the mobile device 102. The Udid may serve as a key to enable a fast lookup whenever a client device executes an application. In this respect, the reward system 508 may use the Udid to lookup a list of every application executed by the client device 102 to determine whether an executed application is a newly installed application” - therefore the system may have a stored rule for excluding ads/offers from the list page (i.e., extraction setting information including a condition for an advertisement of the advertisements to be excluded from the list page) such as if the user has previously installed/engaged with the app and the system executes these rules to determine which ads/offers to include (and therefore ultimately to determine the display order of advertisements not excluded from the list) and the system further determines a display order)
at least one terminal memory configured to store terminal program code; and at least one terminal processor configured to operate as instructed by the terminal program code, the terminal program code comprising: request transmission code configured to cause at least one of the at least one terminal processor to send the application identification of an application used by a user together with the call, and display code configured to cause at least one of the at least one terminal processor to display the list page generated by the notification device in response to the call (claim 6) ([0017] “networked environment…client devices 102 and 104, each storing one or more applications 106, may connect via a network 108, such as the Internet” – client devices are the “terminal devices”, [0041]-[0043] “modules of an application, executing on a client device, and modules of a reward system, executing on a server, according to some embodiments…execution detection module 502 may be inserted into application 106 by the reward system 508 or an advertiser to track execution of the application…Communication module 504 may operate in conjunction with execution detection module 502 to push data, for example, a ping, to the reward system upon execution of the application 106 or initiation and completion of an action within the application 106…. ping may include identifying information…identifier (e.g., Udid) of the client device 102 or an account identifier (e.g., user name, telephone number) associated with a user of the client device 102…identifying information about the application” - the client device (terminal device) sends application identification of an application used by a user, [0019]-[0021] “deliver advertisements to client device 102… when an application…executes, a call is made to the reward machine…call may be in the form of a ping initiated by software code in the application…208, a reward machine(s) 204 associated with the reward platform may deliver an advertisement to the client device 202 executing the application…display of the advertisement…an offer related to the application being executed on the client device…” – client device sends the call to the reward platform and displays the received advertisements generated by the reward platform (i.e., notification device) in response to the call, [0048] “the advertisements may be aggregated and listed on…user interface in the form of an offer wall” - list page generated by the reward system (notification device) is displayed on the client device in response to the call), [0053] “client device…offer wall (e.g., user interface…containing referral offers”, [0071] “The offer may include a title of the action, one or more steps needed to be performed to complete the offer, and an incentive offered for performing the offer. The offer is caused to be displayed on a client device 102 to the user, for example, on an offer wall contained in…user interface”)
Although Tong discloses calls/messages/pings being transmitting from an app executing on a client device (terminal device, e.g., a mobile app executing on their mobile phone) that include an identifier of the app and that result in the reward system responsively generating and transmitting the list page of advertisement summaries back to the client device, it is not explicit that these calls/messages/pings are technically requesting the list of advertisements. Tong does not appear to disclose,
a list request for requesting a list of advertisements…application sending the list request…the list page generated…in response to the list request
However, Kang discloses a system where client devices (Fig 1 tags 102 & 104, Fig 2 tag 230) communicate with a notification device (Fig 2 tag 203) and receives an ordered lists of advertisements/offers for display (Fig 8C, [0027], [0089]-[0090] “advertisement (e.g., video ad) from a list…plurality of video ads or a plurality of images of the product or service (e.g., app image) and associated video ads for the images…”) and wherein the user may be provided with rewards (e.g., in-app currency) for performing certain actions associated with respective ads/offers (e.g., watching an ad, installs an advertised app, purchases an advertised product) ([0025], [0035]-[0037]). Kang further discloses wherein the system receives a request for ads (i.e., a list request) from an application executing on the user’s device and wherein the ordered lists of advertisements/offers for display (list page) is transmitted responsive to this request. Kang discloses
a list request for requesting a list of advertisements… application sending the list request…the list page generated…in response to the list request ([0022] “receive an ad request from the device with the ad request including…an application id to identify the…software application…process the ad request to determine…at least one ad…based on the information contained in the ad request”, [0028] “receive an advertising request from a device upon the device having an ad play event for an initiated software application…”, see also [0072]-[0073] “a device initiates a software application. For example, a user may select one of the software applications (e.g., selects a mobile application from a mobile device). The advertising services software (e.g., SDK) is also initiated upon the initiation of the software application. The SDK may be associated with or embedded with the software application…the device sends an ad request (or a predictive ad request)…ad system) processes the…ad request)…The ad request includes different types of information including publisher settings (e.g., a publisher of the selected software application), an application id to identify the selected software application…”)
Kang suggests it is advantageous to include a list request for requesting a list of advertisements from an application sending the list request, and the list page generated in response to the list request, because doing so can provide an effective and efficient mechanism for proactively retrieving the list of advertisements in response to a variety of programmatic events (e.g., actual events, predicted events) where advertisement presentation may be desired ([0022], [0028], [0072]-[0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device, system method, and medium of Tong to include a list request for requesting a list of advertisements from an application sending the list request, and the list page generated in response to the list request, as taught by Kang, because doing so can provide an effective and efficient mechanism for proactively retrieving the list of advertisements in response to a variety of programmatic events (e.g., actual events, predicted events) where advertisement presentation may be desired.
Furthermore, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, 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 a list request for requesting a list of advertisements of Kang for the calls/messages/pings of Tang. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Tong and Kang do not appear to disclose,
the extraction setting information being stored in an extraction setting table that associates the application identification with the condition, the condition defining a category of products or services to be excluded based on a type of the application
However, Barry discloses
the extraction setting information being stored in an extraction setting table that associates the application identification with the condition, the condition defining a category of products or services to be excluded based on a type of the application (Figure 2 shows an extraction setting table that associates a publishing distribution partner identifier (e.g., application identifier per combination with Tong/Kang) with a condition for advertisements to be excluded from selection for list display at the publishing distribution partner, per [0028]-[0033] & CLAIM 12 a filter application (i.e., condition to be excluded) may be a category of products/services (content node of specific subject matter) to be excluded (e.g., directly identified categories to exclude and/or a series of masks that exclude advertisements in certain predefined categories such as vide ads, gambling ads, non-FDA drug ads, etc.) and these excluded categories are “based on a type of the application” (e.g., because the distribution location may be family friendly and/or is health related and/or sports related)
Barry suggests it is advantageous to include the extraction setting information being stored in an extraction setting table that associates the application identification with the condition, the condition defining a category of products or services to be excluded based on a type of the application, because doing so can provide an effective and efficient mechanism for providing control to various parties over the types of advertising that are eligible to be served to a particular publishing destination which may increase overall satisfaction with the ad serving process for these parties (Fig 2 & [0028]-[0032])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device, system method, and medium of Tong in view of Kang to include the extraction setting information being stored in an extraction setting table that associates the application identification with the condition, the condition defining a category of products or services to be excluded based on a type of the application, as taught by Barry, because doing so can provide an effective and efficient mechanism for providing control to various parties over the types of advertising that are eligible to be served to a particular publishing destination which may increase overall satisfaction with the ad serving process for these parties.
With respect to claim 2, Tong teaches the device of claim 1;
wherein the advertisements include notification information for informing a campaign granting a benefit to a user on a condition that the user takes a predetermined action ([0071] “The offer may include a title of the action, one or more steps needed to be performed to complete the offer, and an incentive offered for performing the offer. The offer is caused to be displayed on a client device 102 to the user, for example, on an offer wall contained in…user interface” – therefore each ad includes a notification information informing the user of an incentive they may receive for taking a predetermined action (i.e., notification information for informing a campaign granting a benefit to a user on a condition that the user takes a predetermined action), see also [0035] “client device 302 may receive the reward for performing and completing the incentivized action. In some embodiments, the reward may correspond to and be usable within the application in which the incentivized action was performed. In some embodiments, the reward may correspond to and be usable within a different application within the client device application platform, such as an application that referred the user to the offer to perform the incentivized action….The reward may be virtual currency or a virtual good for use within the referring application” & [0044] “targeted pay-per-action events may include but are not limited to logging in or checking in to an application account, watching videos, taking surveys, performing specific actions within the application, and accessing particular advertisements”)
With respect to claim 3, Tong teaches the device of claim 2;
wherein the program code further comprises user identification acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a user identification being information for identifying a user using the application, and ([0073] “ping and may include information identifying the application…and the user or client device”, [0043] “ a ping, to the reward system upon execution of the application 106…may include identifying information...identifying information, such as an identifier (e.g., Udid) of the client device 102 or an account identifier (e.g., user name, telephone number) associated with a user of the client device 102”, see also [0022] “Udid…may refer to an account identifier, such as a client device account identifier (e.g., a telephone number) or a third party account identifier (e.g., Facebook.RTM. username…”)
display order determination code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine the display order of the plurality of objects included in the list page in accordance with an amount of the benefit to be granted to the user identified by the acquired user identification ([0046]-[0048[ “reward system…may select and generate referral offers to be transmitted to the client device…list of offers optimized for the application being executed…The list of offers may comprise a list of applications incentivized for download by the user, with the incentive being virtual currency or a virtual good. The list of offers also may include one or more actions capable of being performed within one or more applications, with different actions being awarded differing incentives….may use advertisements from a variety of advertising networks…different advertisements being offered depending on the application being executed by the client device 102….may be chosen for delivery using an ad order algorithm that optimizes advertisements to be delivered by one or more predetermined metrics. In an example embodiment, the effective cost per mille …In some embodiments, the advertisements may be aggregated and listed on…user interface in the form of an offer wall. The advertisements may be sortable or…filtered by…incentive... For example, if the user has installed the application previously via the reward machine(s) (e.g., as part of a pay-per-install offer), the offer to install the application may be filtered out and not shown to the user again.” – therefore list page of advertisements/offers (offer wall) including a plurality of advertisements/offers (i.e., a plurality of objects representing summaries of the advertisements) in a determined order that is based incentive amount and/or bid prices such a cost per mille (which may also be virtual currency per [0067] “bid amount may be actual currency…may be converted into virtual currency to be awarded to the user. The virtual currency may be redeemable or applicable to the application in which the action is being performed”) and these amounts are only available to the user if the user has not already performed the action (e.g., downloaded the app) as determined using the acquired user identification)
With respect to claim 4, Tong teaches the device of claim 1;
wherein the program code further comprises user identification acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a user identification being information for identifying a user using the application, ([0073] “ping and may include information identifying the application…and the user or client device”, [0043] “ a ping, to the reward system upon execution of the application 106…may include identifying information...identifying information, such as an identifier (e.g., Udid) of the client device 102 or an account identifier (e.g., user name, telephone number) associated with a user of the client device 102”, see also [0022] “Udid…may refer to an account identifier, such as a client device account identifier (e.g., a telephone number) or a third party account identifier (e.g., Facebook.RTM. username…”)
action history acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire an action history of the user identified by the acquired user identification for each of the advertisements, wherein the extraction setting information includes a rule for determining the display order based on the action history of the user, and wherein the list page generation code is further condigured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine, based on the action history of the user identified by the acquired user identification, the display order of the plurality of objects included in the list page ([0048]-[0049] “The advertisement offered as a referral may be chosen for delivery using an ad order algorithm that optimizes advertisements to be delivered…The advertisements may be sortable or capable of being filtered by application, action, incentive, Udid, and so forth. For example, if the user has installed the application previously via the reward machine(s) (e.g., as part of a pay-per-install offer), the offer to install the application may be filtered out and not shown to the user again. The application use/install module 512 may monitor and track application usage and installation. The application use/install module 512 may store the client device's Udid whenever a referral sends a user to the app store for a specific application that the client device 102 has not previously run. The client device's Udid may be stored with application identifiers corresponding to every application executed by the mobile device 102. The Udid may serve as a key to enable a fast lookup whenever a client device executes an application. In this respect, the reward system 508 may use the Udid to lookup a list of every application executed by the client device 102 to determine whether an executed application is a newly installed application.” – therefore the system acquires an action history (e.g., previously application installs/executions associated with the user identifier and this acts as a rule for selecting which ads/offers to include in the list (and therefore the ultimate display order), see also [0025] & [0052])
With respect to claim 10, Tong, Kang, and Barry teach the device of claim 1. Tong does not appear to disclose,
wherein the extraction setting table further associates the application identification with a rule for determining the display order, and wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine the display order based on the rule associated with the application identification in the extraction setting table
However, Barry discloses
the extraction setting table further associates the application identification with a rule for determining the display order, and wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine the display order based on the rule associated with the application identification in the extraction setting table (Figure 2 shows an extraction setting table that associates a publishing distribution partner identifier (e.g., application identifier per combination with Tong/Kang) with a condition for advertisements to be excluded from selection for list display at the publishing distribution partner, per [0028]-[0033] & CLAIM 12 the filter application rules are likewise a rule for determining the display order because only ads that are included and not excluded are ranked (i.e., display order determined) )
Barry suggests it is advantageous to include the extraction setting table further associates the application identification with a rule for determining the display order, and wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine the display order based on the rule associated with the application identification in the extraction setting table, because doing so can provide an effective and efficient mechanism for providing control to various parties over the types of advertising that are eligible to be served to a particular publishing destination (and therefore their display order) which may increase overall satisfaction with the ad serving process for these parties (Fig 2 & [0028]-[0032])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tong in view of Kang to include the extraction setting table further associates the application identification with a rule for determining the display order, and wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine the display order based on the rule associated with the application identification in the extraction setting table, as taught by Barry, because doing so can provide an effective and efficient mechanism for providing control to various parties over the types of advertising that are eligible to be served to a particular publishing destination (and therefore their display order) which may increase overall satisfaction with the ad serving process for these parties.
With respect to claim 12, Tong, Kang, and Barry teach the device of claim 1. Tong does not appear to disclose,
wherein the program code further comprises advertisement database code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to store an advertisement table including, for each advertisement, a target category indicating a category of products or services to be advertised, and wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to exclude the advertisement by comparing the target category of the advertisement with the category defined by the condition
However, Barry discloses
the program code further comprises advertisement database code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to store an advertisement table including, for each advertisement, a target category indicating a category of products or services to be advertised, and wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to exclude the advertisement by comparing the target category of the advertisement with the category defined by the condition ([0011] & [0019]-[0020] ad listing database/table with assigned categories and per [0028]-[0033] & CLAIM 12 a each advertisement, a target category indicating a category of products or services to be advertised, and wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to exclude the advertisement by comparing the target category of the advertisement with the category defined by the condition)
Barry suggests it is advantageous to include the program code further comprises advertisement database code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to store an advertisement table including, for each advertisement, a target category indicating a category of products or services to be advertised, and wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to exclude the advertisement by comparing the target category of the advertisement with the category defined by the condition, because doing so can provide an effective and efficient mechanism for providing control to various parties over the types of advertising that are eligible to be served to a particular publishing destination which may increase overall satisfaction with the ad serving process for these parties (Fig 2 & [0028]-[0032])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tong in view of Kang to include the program code further comprises advertisement database code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to store an advertisement table including, for each advertisement, a target category indicating a category of products or services to be advertised, and wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to exclude the advertisement by comparing the target category of the advertisement with the category defined by the condition, as taught by Barry, because doing so can provide an effective and efficient mechanism for providing control to various parties over the types of advertising that are eligible to be served to a particular publishing destination which may increase overall satisfaction with the ad serving process for these parties.
With respect to claim 13, Tong teaches the system of claim 6,
wherein the display code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one terminal processor to display the list page on a screen of the application by processing through a web view for displaying web information in the application ([0065] “an offer wall (in the form of a user interface or web page with selectable referral offers). The offer wall may call a web view of the wall that triggers the protocol handler to redirect the user to the referred application or event in the application identified by the code inserted by the application developer”, [0048] “the application being executed by the client device…user interface in the form of an offer wall”, [0053] “ insert code in the application 106…an offer wall (e.g., a user interface or web page containing referral offers)…may insert code in the application 106 that rewards a user for watching a video or performing a game action in the application 106”)
v Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of Kang in view of Barry, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shahshahani et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2010/0030647, February 4, 2010 - hereinafter "Shahshahani”)
With respect to claim 9, Tong teaches the device of claim 1;
wherein the extraction setting information further includes a rule for determining the display order, and wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine the display order ([0046]-[0048[ “reward system…may select and generate referral offers to be transmitted to the client device…list of offers optimized for the application being executed…The list of offers may comprise a list of applications incentivized for download by the user, with the incentive being virtual currency or a virtual good. The list of offers also may include one or more actions capable of being performed within one or more applications, with different actions being awarded differing incentives….may use advertisements from a variety of advertising networks…different advertisements being offered depending on the application being executed by the client device 102….may be chosen for delivery using an ad order algorithm that optimizes advertisements to be delivered by one or more predetermined metrics. In an example embodiment, the effective cost per mille …In some embodiments, the advertisements may be aggregated and listed on…user interface in the form of an offer wall. The advertisements may be sortable or…filtered by…incentive... For example, if the user has installed the application previously via the reward machine(s) (e.g., as part of a pay-per-install offer), the offer to install the application may be filtered out and not shown to the user again.” – therefore list page of advertisements/offers (offer wall) including a plurality of advertisements/offers (i.e., a plurality of objects representing summaries of the advertisements) in a determined order that is based incentive amount and/or bid prices such a cost per mille (which may also be virtual currency per [0067] “bid amount may be actual currency…may be converted into virtual currency to be awarded to the user. The virtual currency may be redeemable or applicable to the application in which the action is being performed”) and these amounts are only available to the user if the user has not already performed the action (e.g., downloaded the app) as determined using the acquired user identification)
Tong and Kang do not appear to disclose,
the rule including a plurality of conditions with assigned priorities…determine the display order by applying the plurality of conditions in order of the assigned priorities
However, Shahshahani discloses
the rule including a plurality of conditions with assigned priorities…determine the display order by applying the plurality of conditions in order of the assigned priorities ([0062]-[0063] & [0078]-[0079] plurality of weights corresponding to different attributes/factors associated with the advertisements are priorities assigned to plurality of conditions that are applied to the attributes/conditions in order to rank the selected ads)
Shahshahani suggests it is advantageous to include the rule including a plurality of conditions with assigned priorities…determine the display order by applying the plurality of conditions in order of the assigned priorities, because doing so can provide an effective and efficient mechanism for providing control to various parties over the how the advertisements are presented to users which may increase overall satisfaction with the ad serving process for these parties ([0062]-[0063] & [0078]-[0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tong in view of Kang in view of Barry to include the rule including a plurality of conditions with assigned priorities…determine the display order by applying the plurality of conditions in order of the assigned priorities, as taught by Shahshahani, because doing so can provide an effective and efficient mechanism for providing control to various parties over the how the advertisements are presented to users which may increase overall satisfaction with the ad serving process for these parties.
v Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of Kang in view of Barry, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Delug (U.S. PG Pub No. 2014/0074601 , March 13, 2014- hereinafter "Delug”)
With respect to claim 11, Tong, Kang, and Barry teach the device of claim 1. Tong does not appear to disclose,
wherein the extraction setting information further includes attribute information indicating an attribute of the application, and wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine the display order by assigning a higher priority to an advertisement of a product or service closer to the attribute of the application
However, Kang discloses the extraction setting information further includes attribute information indicating an attribute of the application ([0027] “categories or types of applications installed on the device”).
Tong, Kang, and Barry do not appear to disclose,
wherein the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine the display order by assigning a higher priority to an advertisement of a product or service closer to the attribute of the application
However, Delug discloses
the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine the display order by assigning a higher priority to an advertisement of a product or service closer to the attribute of the application ([0034] “ the advertisement server 114 may utilize the information available through the user's mobile device, specifically information such as the names, developer information, categories, etc. that are associated with apps that are installed on the mobile device, to perform selection of new apps to suggest to the user. The new apps may be suggested to the user through banner advertisements, rich-media type advertisements, app walls (an advertisement unit with a list of apps that a user can pick and choose from to install on their mobile device), etc. In one instance, the advertisement server 114 may suggest one or more new apps to the mobile device user based on the commonality of the information associated with the mobile apps installed on the mobile device and the one or more new apps suggested to the user. In one instance, when suggesting one or more new apps to the user, the advertisement server 114 may consider the commonality of the category between the mobile apps installed on the mobile device and the one or more new apps suggested to the user” - list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine the display order by assigning a higher priority to an advertisement of a product or service closer to the attribute of the application, see also [0006]-[0007] & [0041]-[0042] & [0054]-[0055])
Delug suggests it is advantageous to include the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine the display order by assigning a higher priority to an advertisement of a product or service closer to the attribute of the application, because doing so can increase the relevance or likelihood of user interest in the advertisement ([0034] & [0006]-[0007] & [0041]-[0042] & [0054]-[0055]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tong in view of Kang in view of Barry to include the list page generation code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine the display order by assigning a higher priority to an advertisement of a product or service closer to the attribute of the application, as taught by Delug, because doing so can increase the relevance or likelihood of user interest in the advertisement.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Seo et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2024/0221016, July 4, 2024) teaches providing a list of advertisement/offer via a mobile app executing on a client device, including wherein the list of advertisements/offers are ordered according to a benefit value the user may receive in response to performing an action associated with a respective ad/offer (e.g., viewing the advertisement, installing an app). Also discloses receiving a list request from the client device, and wherein the reward amount is determined based on a usage history associated with the user of the client device.
Lee et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2015/0120458, April 30, 2015) teaches in-app advertising including wherein an ad request comprising an appID is received and a list of advertisements/offers is selected based on the appID and displayed on the user device.
Hermann (U.S. PG Pub No. 2012/0214568, August 23, 2012) teaches in-app advertising including wherein a user may benefits/incentives in response to performing an action associated with a respective ad/offer (e.g., viewing the advertisement, installing an app).
“What Are Rewarded Ads and How Do They Benefit App Owners?” (Crowley; published March 23, 2022 at https://appsamurai.com/blog/rewarded-ads-benefit-app-owners/#:~:text=What%20Are%20Offerwalls?,spend%20real%20money%20to%20purchase) teaches in-app advertising including wherein a user may benefits/incentives in response to performing an action associated with a respective ad/offer (e.g., viewing the advertisement, installing an app). Also discloses offer walls.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights