DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on June 30, 2025 cancelled no claims. Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-19 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-20.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 1 recites: “sending a first content request is associated with requesting first media content and a first advertisement candidate set related to the first media content”. This appears to be a typographical error that is intended to either recite “sending a first content request, wherein the first content request is associated with…” or merely “sending a first content request associated with…”. As currently recited, the claim does not include proper English and also could indicated that an entire object of the term “is”, other than the first content request, has been omitted from the claim. However, given how this limitation is recited in the other independent claims, the examiner believes it to be merely a typographical error.
Dependent claims 2-7, inherit the limitations of the claim from which they depend and fail to correct the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend. As such, claims 2-7 are objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate 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.
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 and 2 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner Note: the applications server and the advertising server are both outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and, as such, have been included as part of the abstract idea because it cannot be considered an “additional element” of the claimed invention itself)
sending, to an application server, a first content request is associated with requesting first media content and a first advertisement candidate set related to the first media content;
receiving the first media content and the first advertisement candidate set from the application server;
displaying a first content, wherein the first content comprises the first media content;
sending a first advertising request to an advertising server, wherein the first advertising request carries the first advertisement candidate set;
receiving first advertising content from the advertising server, wherein the first advertising content is associated with the first advertisement candidate set;
displaying a second content, wherein the second content comprises the first media content and the first advertising content.
sending a second content request to the application server in response to a first operation, wherein the second content request is used to request second media content and a second advertisement candidate set related to the second media content;
receiving the second media content and the second advertisement candidate set from the application server;
displaying a third content, wherein the third content comprises the second media content;
sending a second advertising request to the advertising server in response to a second operation, wherein the second advertising request carries an open anonymous device identifier (OAID) and the second advertisement candidate set;
receiving second advertising content from the advertising server, wherein the second advertising content is associated with the OAID or the second advertisement candidate set; and
displaying a fourth content, wherein the fourth content comprises the second media content and the second advertising content.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a first application interface, a second application interface, a third application interface, and a fourth application interface (e.g., generic computer elements as per the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
sending, to an application server, a first content request is associated with requesting first media content and a first advertisement candidate set related to the first media content (transmitting data);
receiving the first media content and the first advertisement candidate set from the application server (receiving data);
displaying a first application interface, wherein the first application interface comprises the first media content (displaying data);
sending a first advertising request to an advertising server, wherein the first advertising request carries the first advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
receiving first advertising content from the advertising server, wherein the first advertising content is associated with the first advertisement candidate set (receiving data);
displaying a second application interface, wherein the second application interface comprises the first media content and the first advertising content (displaying data).
sending a second content request to the application server in response to a first operation, wherein the second content request is used to request second media content and a second advertisement candidate set related to the second media content (transmitting data);
receiving the second media content and the second advertisement candidate set from the application server (receiving data);
displaying a third application interface, wherein the third application interface comprises the second media content (displaying data);
sending a second advertising request to the advertising server in response to a second operation, wherein the second advertising request carries an open anonymous device identifier (OAID) and the second advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
receiving second advertising content from the advertising server, wherein the second advertising content is associated with the OAID or the second advertisement candidate set (receiving data); and
displaying a fourth application interface, wherein the fourth application interface comprises the second media content and the second advertising content (displaying data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a first application interface, a second application interface, a third application interface, and a fourth application interface (e.g., generic computer elements as per the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computer (as evidenced from paragraphs 44, 90, and 231-234 of the applicant’s specification, as well as the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One which indicates if the disclosure does not assert that it invented the "interactive interface", a generic interactive interface that provides information to and accepts user input is a generic computer element); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
sending, to an application server, a first content request is associated with requesting first media content and a first advertisement candidate set related to the first media content (transmitting data);
receiving the first media content and the first advertisement candidate set from the application server (receiving data);
displaying a first application interface, wherein the first application interface comprises the first media content (displaying data);
sending a first advertising request to an advertising server, wherein the first advertising request carries the first advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
receiving first advertising content from the advertising server, wherein the first advertising content is associated with the first advertisement candidate set (receiving data);
displaying a second application interface, wherein the second application interface comprises the first media content and the first advertising content (displaying data).
sending a second content request to the application server in response to a first operation, wherein the second content request is used to request second media content and a second advertisement candidate set related to the second media content (transmitting data);
receiving the second media content and the second advertisement candidate set from the application server (receiving data);
displaying a third application interface, wherein the third application interface comprises the second media content (displaying data);
sending a second advertising request to the advertising server in response to a second operation, wherein the second advertising request carries an open anonymous device identifier (OAID) and the second advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
receiving second advertising content from the advertising server, wherein the second advertising content is associated with the OAID or the second advertisement candidate set (receiving data); and
displaying a fourth application interface, wherein the fourth application interface comprises the second media content and the second advertising content (displaying data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 3-7 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting how the first advertisement candidate set and the second advertisement candidate set are obtained which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 3), further limiting the first advertisement candidate set which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 4); further limiting the sending of the first content request which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 5-6); and further limiting the sending of the first advertising request which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 7), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-7 are not patent eligible.
Claims 8-16 are directed to a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 8-9, 11 and 13 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
sending, by a content provider, a first media content sent to a content analysis provider;
performing at least one of: analyzing, by the content analysis provider, the first media content, and generating context information of the first media content and receiving, by the content provider, the context information of the first media content from the content analysis provider; or analyzing, by the content provider, the first media content, and generating the context information of the first media content;
sending, by the content provider, the context information of the first media content to the advertising provider;
selecting, by the advertising provider, at least one piece of advertising content matching the context information of the first media content, wherein the at least one piece of advertising content comprises first advertising content;
sending, by the advertising provider, the first advertisement candidate set to the content provider, wherein the first advertisement candidate set comprises an advertising identifier of the at least one piece of advertising content matching the context information of the first media content;
sending, by the user, a first content request to the content provider, wherein the first content request is associated with requesting the first media content and the first advertisement candidate set related to the first media content;
sending, by the content provider, the first media content and the first advertisement candidate set to the user;
displaying, by the user, a first content, wherein the first content comprises the first media content;
sending, by the user, a first advertising request to an advertising provider, wherein the first advertising request carries the first advertisement candidate set;
sending, by the advertising provider, the first advertising content to the user based on the first advertisement candidate set, wherein the first advertising content is associated with the first advertisement candidate set;
displaying, by the user, a second content, wherein the second content comprises the first media content and the first advertising content;
sending, by the user, a second content request to the content provider in response to a first operation, wherein the second content request is used to request second media content and a second advertisement candidate set related to the second media content;
sending, by the content provider, the second media content and the second advertisement candidate set to the user;
displaying, by the user, a third content, wherein the third content comprises the second media content;
sending, by the user, a second advertising request to the advertising provider in response to a second operation, wherein the second advertising request carries an open anonymous device identifier (OAID) and the second advertisement candidate set;
sending, by the advertising provider, second advertising content to the user, wherein the second advertising content is associated with the OAID or the second advertisement candidate set; and
displaying, by the user, a fourth content, wherein the fourth content comprises the second media content and the second advertising content.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of:
a terminal device with a first application interface, a second application interface, a third application interface, and a fourth application interface (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer elements as per the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision),
an application server (e.g., a general-purpose computer),
an advertising server (e.g., a general-purpose computer), and
a content analysis server.
Considered individually, the additional elements amount to no more that four different general-purpose computers, each performing the insignificant extra-solution activities of transmitting data, receiving data, and/or displaying data, wherein only one of the general-purpose computers is required to perform the significant steps of analyzing the first media content and generating the context information of the first media content. Considered as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than four general-purpose computers merely being applied to perform an abstract idea, wherein the abstract idea comprises only the significant steps of analyzing the first media content and generating the context information of the first media content, wherein said significant steps could either be performed by the content analysis server or the application server.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
sending, by an application server, a first media content sent to a content analysis server (transmitting data);
receiving, by the application server, the context information of the first media content from the content analysis server (receiving data);
sending, by the application server, the context information of the first media content to the advertising server (transmitting data);
sending, by the advertising server, the first advertisement candidate set to the application server, wherein the first advertisement candidate set comprises an advertising identifier of the at least one piece of advertising content matching the context information of the first media content (transmitting data);
sending, by a terminal device, a first content request to an application server, wherein the first content request is associated with requesting first media content and a first advertisement candidate set related to the first media content (transmitting data);
sending, by the application server, the first media content and the first advertisement candidate set to the terminal device (transmitting data);
displaying, by the terminal device, a first application interface, wherein the first application interface comprises the first media content (displaying data);
sending, by the terminal device, a first advertising request to an advertising server, wherein the first advertising request carries the first advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
sending, by the advertising server, first advertising content to the terminal device based on the first advertisement candidate set, wherein the first advertising content is associated with the first advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
displaying, by the terminal device, a second application interface, wherein the second application interface comprises the first media content and the first advertising content (displaying data);
sending, by the terminal device, a second content request to the application server in response to a first operation, wherein the second content request is used to request second media content and a second advertisement candidate set related to the second media content (transmitting data);
sending, by the application server, the second media content and the second advertisement candidate set to the terminal device (transmitting data);
displaying, by the terminal device, a third application interface, wherein the third application interface comprises the second media content (displaying data);
sending, by the terminal device, a second advertising request to the advertising server in response to a second operation, wherein the second advertising request carries an open anonymous device identifier (OAID) and the second advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
sending, by the advertising server, second advertising content to the terminal device, wherein the second advertising content is associated with the OAID or the second advertisement candidate set (transmitting data); and
displaying, by the terminal device, a fourth application interface, wherein the fourth application interface comprises the second media content and the second advertising content (displaying data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a terminal device with a first application interface, a second application interface, a third application interface, and a fourth application interface (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer elements as per the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision), an application server (e.g., a general-purpose computer), an advertising server (e.g., a general-purpose computer), and a content analysis server (e.g., general-purpose computer) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a four general-purpose computers with generic computer components.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computers (as evidenced from paragraphs 44, 90, and 231-234 of the applicant’s specification, as well as the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One which indicates if the disclosure does not assert that it invented the "interactive interface", a generic interactive interface that provides information to and accepts user input is a generic computer element); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
sending, by an application server, a first media content sent to a content analysis server (transmitting data);
receiving, by the application server, the context information of the first media content from the content analysis server (receiving data);
sending, by the application server, the context information of the first media content to the advertising server (transmitting data);
sending, by the advertising server, the first advertisement candidate set to the application server, wherein the first advertisement candidate set comprises an advertising identifier of the at least one piece of advertising content matching the context information of the first media content (transmitting data);
sending, by a terminal device, a first content request to an application server, wherein the first content request is associated with requesting first media content and a first advertisement candidate set related to the first media content (transmitting data);
sending, by the application server, the first media content and the first advertisement candidate set to the terminal device (transmitting data);
displaying, by the terminal device, a first application interface, wherein the first application interface comprises the first media content (displaying data);
sending, by the terminal device, a first advertising request to an advertising server, wherein the first advertising request carries the first advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
sending, by the advertising server, first advertising content to the terminal device based on the first advertisement candidate set, wherein the first advertising content is associated with the first advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
displaying, by the terminal device, a second application interface, wherein the second application interface comprises the first media content and the first advertising content (displaying data);
sending, by the terminal device, a second content request to the application server in response to a first operation, wherein the second content request is used to request second media content and a second advertisement candidate set related to the second media content (transmitting data);
sending, by the application server, the second media content and the second advertisement candidate set to the terminal device (transmitting data);
displaying, by the terminal device, a third application interface, wherein the third application interface comprises the second media content (displaying data);
sending, by the terminal device, a second advertising request to the advertising server in response to a second operation, wherein the second advertising request carries an open anonymous device identifier (OAID) and the second advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
sending, by the advertising server, second advertising content to the terminal device, wherein the second advertising content is associated with the OAID or the second advertisement candidate set (transmitting data); and
displaying, by the terminal device, a fourth application interface, wherein the fourth application interface comprises the second media content and the second advertising content (displaying data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 10, 12 and 14-17 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the context information and the selecting of the at least one piece of advertising content which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 10); adding an additional receiving or obtaining step associated with the first media content which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 12); further limiting the sending of the second advertising content which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 14-15); further limiting the sending of the first content request which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 16-17), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 8-17 are not patent eligible.
Claims 18-20 are directed to an apparatus which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 18-19 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner Note: the applications server and the advertising server are both outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and, as such, have been included as part of the abstract idea because it cannot be considered an “additional element” of the claimed invention itself)
send a first content request to an application server, wherein the first content request is associate with requesting first media content and a first advertisement candidate set related to the first media content;
receive the first media content and the first advertisement candidate set from the application server;
display a first content, wherein the first content comprises the first media content;
send a first advertising request to an advertising server, wherein the first advertising request carries the first advertisement candidate set;
receive first advertising content from the advertising server, wherein the first advertising content is associated with the first advertisement candidate set;
display a second content, wherein the second content comprises the first media content and the first advertising content;
send a second content request to the application server in response to a first operation, wherein the second content request is associated with requesting second media content and a second advertisement candidate set related to the second media content;
receive the second media content and the second advertisement candidate set from the application server;
display a third content, wherein the third content comprises the second media content;
send a second advertising request to the advertising server in response to a second operation, wherein the second advertising request carries an open anonymous device identifier (OAID) and the second advertisement candidate set;
receive second advertising content from the advertising server, wherein the second advertising content is associated with the OAID or the second advertisement candidate set; and
display a fourth content, wherein the fourth content comprises the second media content and the second advertising content.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer comprising one or more processors, at least one non-transitory computer readable memory including computer program code, a first application interface, a second application interface, a third application interface, and a fourth application interface (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer elements as per the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
send a first content request to an application server, wherein the first content request is associate with requesting first media content and a first advertisement candidate set related to the first media content (transmitting data);
receive the first media content and the first advertisement candidate set from the application server (receiving data);
display a first application interface, wherein the first application interface comprises the first media content (displaying data);
send a first advertising request to an advertising server, wherein the first advertising request carries the first advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
receive first advertising content from the advertising server, wherein the first advertising content is associated with the first advertisement candidate set (receiving data);
display a second application interface, wherein the second application interface comprises the first media content and the first advertising content (displaying data);
send a second content request to the application server in response to a first operation, wherein the second content request is associated with requesting second media content and a second advertisement candidate set related to the second media content (transmitting data);
receive the second media content and the second advertisement candidate set from the application server (receiving data);
display a third application interface, wherein the third application interface comprises the second media content (displaying data);
send a second advertising request to the advertising server in response to a second operation, wherein the second advertising request carries an open anonymous device identifier (OAID) and the second advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
receive second advertising content from the advertising server, wherein the second advertising content is associated with the OAID or the second advertisement candidate set (receiving data); and
display a fourth application interface, wherein the fourth application interface comprises the second media content and the second advertising content (displaying data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer comprising one or more processors, at least one non-transitory computer readable memory including computer program code, a first application interface, a second application interface, a third application interface, and a fourth application interface (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer elements as per the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computer (as evidenced from paragraphs 44, 90, and 231-234 of the applicant’s specification, as well as the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One which indicates if the disclosure does not assert that it invented the "interactive interface", a generic interactive interface that provides information to and accepts user input is a generic computer element); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
send a first content request to an application server, wherein the first content request is associate with requesting first media content and a first advertisement candidate set related to the first media content (transmitting data);
receive the first media content and the first advertisement candidate set from the application server (receiving data);
display a first application interface, wherein the first application interface comprises the first media content (displaying data);
send a first advertising request to an advertising server, wherein the first advertising request carries the first advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
receive first advertising content from the advertising server, wherein the first advertising content is associated with the first advertisement candidate set (receiving data);
display a second application interface, wherein the second application interface comprises the first media content and the first advertising content (displaying data);
send a second content request to the application server in response to a first operation, wherein the second content request is associated with requesting second media content and a second advertisement candidate set related to the second media content (transmitting data);
receive the second media content and the second advertisement candidate set from the application server (receiving data);
display a third application interface, wherein the third application interface comprises the second media content (displaying data);
send a second advertising request to the advertising server in response to a second operation, wherein the second advertising request carries an open anonymous device identifier (OAID) and the second advertisement candidate set (transmitting data);
receive second advertising content from the advertising server, wherein the second advertising content is associated with the OAID or the second advertisement candidate set (receiving data); and
display a fourth application interface, wherein the fourth application interface comprises the second media content and the second advertising content (displaying data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claim 20 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the first advertisement candidate set and the second advertisement candidate set which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 20), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 18-20 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections and the Claim Objections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner has found prior art (see Zhang et al.: 2024/0296483 which discloses a method, a method, and a device, wherein the method comprises comprising:
executing, by a terminal device, a first application
sending, by the terminal device and in response to executing the first application, a first content request to an application server, wherein the first content request is associated with requesting first media content and a first advertisement related to the first media content;
determining, by the application server, advertising information comprising: an advertising space ID and a position of an advertising space in the first media content;
sending, by the application server, the first media content and the advertising information to the terminal device;
sending, to an ad server and by an advertisement SDK of the first application executing on the terminal device, an advertisement request including the advertisement information;
determining, by the ad server, an advertisement associated with the advertisement information;
transmitting, by the ad server and to the advertisement SDK of the first application executing on the terminal device, the determined advertisement; and
displaying, by the first application executing on the first terminal, the advertisement in the first media content.
The examiner has found prior art (see Cohen et al.: 2011/0313856; Chang et al.: 2015/0106157; and Hite et al.: 5,774,170) which discloses
sending, by a terminal device, a first content request to an application server, wherein the first content request is associated with requesting first media content and a first set of advertisement candidate IDs to the first media content;
sending, by the application server, the first media content and the first set of advertisement candidate IDs;
selecting, by the terminal device, an advertisement ID from the first set of advertisement candidate IDs;
sending, by the terminal device and to an ad server, a request for an advertisement associated with the selected advertisement ID;
sending, by the ad server and to the terminal device, the advertisement; and
displaying, by the terminal device the advertisement and the media content in the application.
and/or
sending, by a terminal device, a first content request to an application server, wherein the first content request is associated with requesting first media content and a first set of candidate advertisement to the first media content;
sending, by the application server, the first media content and the first set of candidate advertisements;
selecting, by the terminal device, an advertisement from the first set of candidate advertisements; and
displaying, by the terminal device, the advertisement from the first set of candidate advertisements and the first media content.in an application interface of the application.
However, the examiner has been unable to find prior art in which discloses the following fact pattern required by the claims:
the app server, in response to a request for media content, sends to the terminal device a set of candidate advertisements and the requested media content;
the terminal device displays the requested media content in a first application interface;
the terminal then sends the set of candidate advertisements to the ad server;
the ad server selects an advertisement from the set of candidate advertisements and then transmits the selected advertisement to the terminal device; and
the terminal device then displays the selected advertisement in a second application interface.
As such, the claims 1-20 recite subject matter that is not disclosed in the prior art. Therefore, claims 1-20 contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections and the Claim Objections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (CN110751503) which discloses receiving, by a terminal device and from an app server, media content; displaying the media content in a first application interface of an application, tracking, by an advertising SDK of the application, interactions of the user with the media content, sending an request for advertising content, to an ad server, based on the tracked interactions, selecting by the ad server an advertisement based on the user interactions, and transmitting the advertisement to the terminal device for display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights