Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first non-final Office Action on the merits for application 19248815. Claim 1 is pending examination.
Double Patenting
2. A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of allowed claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,373,860. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 of Application No. 19248815, is fully disclosed in allowed claim 1 of the Parent No. 12,373,860.
Application number: 19248815:1. A method comprising: at a computer system, during a first time period: receiving identification of a first slot loaded within a first electronic document accessed by a first computing device remote from the computer system, the first slot remaining outside a first viewing window of the first computing device and loaded with a first default visual media;characterizing a first set of features representative of the first slot and comprising a first address associated with the first electronic document and a first set of device characteristics associated with the first computing device;representing characteristics of the first set of features in a first feature container associated with the first slot;characterizing a first difference between the first feature container and a first group of feature containers representing target combinations of feature characteristics predicted to anticipate a first target outcome, in a set of target outcomes, defined for a first campaign;retrieving an outcome model associating feature containers with a set of target outcomes of consumption of visual media;for a first target outcome, in the set of target outcomes, predicting a first outcome score based on the first difference and the outcome model, the first outcome score representing a likelihood of user interactions with visual media presented within the first slot corresponding to the first target outcome; in response to the first outcome score exceeding a threshold outcome score, selecting a first visual media, in the first campaign, for presentation within the first slot in replacement of the first default visual media; andserving the first visual media to the first computing device for rendering within the first slot prior to an event that locates the first slot in the first viewing window of the first computing device; and at the computer system, during a second time period:receiving identification of a second slot loaded within a second electronic document accessed by a second computing device remote from the computer system, the second slot remaining outside a viewing window of the second computing device and loaded with a second default visual media;characterizing a second set of features representative of the second slot and comprising a second address associated with the second electronic document and a second set of device characteristics associated with the second computing device;representing characteristics of the second set of features in a second feature container associated with the second slot;characterizing a second difference between the second feature container and the first group of feature containers, the second difference exceeding the first difference;for the first target outcome, predicting a second outcome score based on the second difference and the outcome model, the second outcome score representing a likelihood of user interactions with visual media presented within the second slot corresponding to the first target outcome; and in response to the second outcome score falling below the threshold outcome score, rejecting the first visual media for presentation within the second slot.
Patent number: 12,373,860:1. A method comprising:
at a computer system, during a first time period:at a first time, via a computer network, receiving identification of a first slot loaded within a first electronic document accessed by a first computing device remote from the computer system, the first slot remaining outside a first viewing window of the first computing device and loaded with a first default visual media at the first time;
characterizing a first set of features representative of the first slot and comprising a first address associated with the first electronic document and a first set of device characteristics associated with the first computing device;
representing characteristics of the first set of features in a first feature container associated with the first slot;
characterizing a first difference between the first feature container and a first group of feature containers representing target combinations of feature characteristics predicted to anticipate a first target outcome, in a set of target outcomes, defined for a first campaign; and
retrieving an outcome model associating feature containers with a set of target outcomes of consumption of visual media;
for a first target outcome, in the set of target outcomes, predicting a first outcome score based on the first difference and the outcome model, the first outcome score representing a likelihood of user interactions with visual media presented within the first slot corresponding to the first target outcome;
in response to the first outcome score exceeding a threshold outcome score, selecting a first visual media, in the first campaign, for presentation within the first slot in replacement of the first default visual media; and
serving the first visual media to the first computing device for rendering within the first slot prior to an event that locates the first slot in the first viewing window of the first computing device; and
at the computer system, during a second time period:
at a second time, via the computer network, receiving identification of a second slot loaded within a second electronic document accessed by a second computing device remote from the computer system, the second slot remaining outside a viewing window of the second computing device and loaded with a second default visual media at the second time;
characterizing a second set of features representative of the second slot and comprising a second address associated with the second electronic document and a second set of device characteristics associated with the second computing device;
representing characteristics of the second set of features in a second feature container associated with the second slot;
characterizing a second difference between the second feature container and the first group of feature containers, the second difference exceeding the first difference;
for the first target outcome, predicting a second outcome score based on the second difference and the outcome model, the second outcome score representing a likelihood of user interactions with visual media presented within the second slot corresponding to the first target outcome; and
in response to the second outcome score falling below the threshold outcome score, rejecting the first visual media for presentation within the second slot.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the changes above in order to cover slightly broader limitations. Furthermore, the claimed elements perform the same function as before. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant would be prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application in the other copending Patent Application.
Abstract Idea
3. In regards of the 35 U.S.C 101 abstract, No 101 abstract idea rejection was giving for reasons of:
Claim(s) 1 are eligible under 35 USC 101. Under Step 1 of the analysis, pending independent claim(s) 1 are directed towards a method, respectively, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion.
Under Prong One of Revised Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the pending independent claims do recite a judicial exception – i.e. commercial interaction, including advertising/marketing activities or behavior, business relations/sales activities, which represents a method of organizing human activity.
Under Prong Two, the pending independent claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception; thus, the pending independent claims as well as their respective dependent claims are not directed to a judicial exception.
Examiner considers this a clear recitation of a claimed invention and features that are directed to a practical application of the claimed invention, and therefore to patent-eligible subject matter. The Examiner notes that the pending claim language, and based on the disclosure in the specification, is directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, based on these findings of fact, the Examiner understands the claimed subject matter to be patent-eligible.
Prior Art
4. In reference to independent claim 1, the Office is unaware of any references that teach, individually or without an unreasonable combination of references, the combination of limitations steps found in the claims especially limitation that says: “method for modeling visual media consumption includes: receiving identification of a slot loaded within a webpage accessed by a computing device and remaining outside a first viewing window of the computing device; characterizing a set of features representative of the slot and comprising an address associated with the webpage; representing characteristics of the set of features in a feature container; characterizing a difference between the feature container and a group of feature containers representing target combinations of feature characteristics predicted to anticipate a target outcome, in a defined for a first campaign; and, based on the difference, serving a first visual media in the first campaign to the computing device for rendering within the slot prior to an event that locates the slot in the viewing window of the computing device.”. No reference found that would teach the above limitation(s).
The closest reference(s) found by the Examiner barely reads or teaches the claim invention: US20160027100A1: methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for distributing content items. In one aspect, a method includes identifying a content item that is eligible to be provided in response to a content item request and is associated with a bid. It is determined that the identified content item includes two or more different interactive elements that each cause different actions to be initiated in response to user interaction with the different interactive elements. An auction score is determined for the content item based on a function of the bid, a bid modifier for each different interaction, and a probability that each interaction will be invoked. The content item is selected to be provided based on the auction score. Data that cause presentation of the selected content item at a user device are output.
US20190102820A1: a recommendation engine can provide recommendations with respect to an application and can provide insights to a user of a computing device. The recommendation engine can receive a prediction based on user engagement with the application during an initial period of time (e.g., a trial period) as to whether the user will convert use of the application to a paid basis (e.g., a subscription or license to the application). An action can be recommended based on the prediction. The recommendation engine can provide insights to a user based on a score associated with the insight. The score can be determined by measuring previous user interactions with the insight over a period of time.
No cited references found that would teach or suggest at least theses of amended independent claims 1, 21, and 25 especially on claim limitations listed below: at a first time, receiving identification of a first slot loaded within a first electronic document accessed by a first computing device, the first slot remaining outside a first viewing window of the first computing device and loaded with a default visual media at the first time; characterizing a first set of features representative of the first slot and comprising a first address associated with the first electronic document and a first set of device characteristics associated with the first computing device; representing characteristics of the first set of features in a first feature container associated with the first slot; characterizing a first difference between the first feature container and a first group of feature containers representing target combinations of feature characteristics predicted to anticipate a first target outcome, in a set of target outcomes, defined for a first campaign; and based on the first difference: selecting a first visual media, in a first campaign defining the first target outcome, for presentation within the first slot in replacement of the default visual media; and serving the first visual media to the first computing device for rendering within the first slot prior to an event that locates the first slot in the first viewing window of the first computing device; and during a second time period: at a second time, receiving identification of a second slot loaded within a second electronic document accessed by a second computing device, the second slot remaining outside a viewing window of the second computing device at the third time; characterizing a second set of features representative of the second slot and comprising a second address associated with the second electronic document and a second set of device characteristics associated with the second computing device; representing characteristics of the second set of features in a second feature container associated with the second slot; characterizing a second difference between the second feature container and the first group of feature containers, the second difference exceeding the first difference; and based on the second difference, rejecting the first visual media for presentation within the second slot.
All these references listed above teaches some of the features in the limitations of the claim but when combining it becomes not obvious and the references would teach the claim as a whole.
Examiner note: none of the references or combined references teach the combination of limitations of claim 1 or no reference found that would teaches the combination of limitations of claim 1 especially the idea of a method for modeling visual media consumption includes: receiving identification of a slot loaded within a webpage accessed by a computing device and remaining outside a first viewing window of the computing device; characterizing a set of features representative of the slot and comprising an address associated with the webpage; representing characteristics of the set of features in a feature container; characterizing a difference between the feature container and a group of feature containers representing target combinations of feature characteristics predicted to anticipate a target outcome, in a defined for a first campaign; and, based on the difference, serving a first visual media in the first campaign to the computing device for rendering within the slot prior to an event that locates the slot in the viewing window of the computing device, and which is an idea of a method for modeling visual media consumption includes: receiving identification of a slot loaded within a webpage accessed by a computing device and remaining outside a first viewing window of the computing device; characterizing a set of features representative of the slot and comprising an address associated with the webpage; representing characteristics of the set of features in a feature container; characterizing a difference between the feature container and a group of feature containers representing target combinations of feature characteristics predicted to anticipate a target outcome, in a defined for a first campaign; and, based on the difference, serving a first visual media in the first campaign to the computing device for rendering within the slot prior to an event that locates the slot in the viewing window of the computing device.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
NPL Reference
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL “Digital Video In-Stream Ad Format Guidelines” describes “the IAB released the first creative guidelines for online video to improve the workflow for creating and buying digital video advertising and to enhance the video viewer experience. As digital video advertising grew, new formats emerged and in 2008, the guidelines were updated to acknowledge the new formats and offer more detail on both the creative and technical aspects of video player and ad development. Definitions for the difference between in-stream video and in-banner or display video were established in the Digital Video Measurement Guidelines, and compliment the in-stream video ad format guidelines in this document today. In 2015, the digital video marketplace includes platforms that extend to mobile, television, and an array of other technologies and devices, much to the credit of ad serving practices in the IAB VSuite being more widely adopted. The specifications outlined in this document have been updated to support the growth of the digital video marketplace and the advances in technology that have resulted. With crossscreen ad execution in mind, provisions have been made for varied quality files that improve “intelligent” selection in vendor-served ads (3rd party) and server-side ad stitching practices. Supporting the need for high-quality video files has also been a key focus in this update. In addition, the Video Ad Serving Template (VAST) has been updated simultaneously to account for the updates made in this document.”.
Pertinent Art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference#US20140337130A1 teaches similar invention which describes Improved systems and methods for identifying online advertisement conversions, and for identifying high-value targets for the delivery of subsequent advertising impressions. Travel reservation data is communicated to an ad network to determine populations of potential travelers. Such populations may be aggregated by destination, date and time of travel, travel mode, size of travel group, and so forth. The populations of potential travelers thus identified may then be selected to receive targeted ad impressions based at least in part upon the travel itinerary. Other indicia of travel, such as the addition of an international calling plan to a cellular telephone subscription, may be utilized to indentify high-value targets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAREK ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (571) 272-9638. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex Mon - Thur 7-7:00 and Fri 7-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621B
Prosecution Insights