DETAILED ACTION
The communication is a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 1-13, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 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: Claims 1-13 are directed towards a system. Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A - Prong One: As per MPEP 2106.04, Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.
Claim 1 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea.):
A system for providing generative response content (GRC) within digital impressions, the system comprising a memory and one or more processors configured to:
receive, using the one or more processors, GRC knowledge data for storage in the memory, wherein the GRC knowledge data comprises source data and user input defining enrichment data for the source data;
receive, using the one or more processors, impression content, wherein the impression content is configured for distribution using one or more programmatic advertising platforms;
generate, using the one or more processors, a digital impression with GRC by including a conversational interface within the impression content, wherein the conversational interface uses a large language model (LLM) trained to generate responses using the GRC knowledge data;
and providing, using the one or more processors, the digital impression with GRC for distribution over a network by the one or more programmatic advertising platforms to end user devices according to a distribution algorithm.
The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2A - Prong Two and Step 2B). The claims recite the abstract idea of presenting advertisements that include an interactive chatbot which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The Remaining Claims: The dependent claims recite fail to recite any additional elements beyond those already identified except: “log interface” (claims 2, 3); “validation interface” (claim 4); “graphical user interface” (claim 5).
The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments: present and summarize user interaction data (claims 2, 3); validate conversational data (claim 4); more specificity to the source data (claim 5); standard computer interaction protocols (claim 6); business parameters for the chat interface (claim 7); types of ads (claim 9); a QR-code ad (claim 10); fallback behavior for error handling (claim 11); industry standard for tracking (claim 12); updating the source data (claim 13). Therefore, the identified claims fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two determines if the claim(s) recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As for the additional elements of: system comprising a memory and one or more processors, a network, end user devices, one or more programmatic advertising platforms. To be patent-eligible, the elements additional to the identified abstract idea must amount to more than "an instruction to apply the abstract idea . . . using some unspecified, generic computer" to render the claim patent-eligible. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 226 (2014). Here, Applicant's Specification describes “programmatic advertising platforms” as “interconnected systems and decision-making algorithms” (0017) and “automated digital advertising ecosystems that facilitate the buying, selling, and delivery of advertising inventory” (0039-0041); that is, a “programmatic advertising platform” is a standard advertisement delivery system. It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. Therefore, the claims amount to no more than a mere method, system, and/or computer program product to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As for the additional element(s) of: receive…GRC knowledge data for storage in the memory, receive…impression content, providing…the digital impression with GRC for distribution represent data gathering. The gathering of data represents insignificant extra-solution activity that comprises mere data gathering. The additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g).
As for the additional element(s) of: log interface, validation interface, graphical user interface. The additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g).
As for the additional element(s) of: uses a large language model (LLM). The use of machine learning or artificial intelligence, without providing details of how the models themselves are improved, represents mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The ordered combination of these additional elements amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ordered combination offers nothing more than employing a generic configuration of computer devices and computer functions. The claims do not amount to a practical application, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether 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.
As for the additional element(s):
receive…GRC knowledge data for storage in the memory, receive…impression content, providing…the digital impression with GRC for distribution represent content similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)
uses a large language model (LLM) Machine learning specified at a high level of generality is well-understood, routine and conventional as exemplified in "Approaches to Machine Learning" by Langley et al. (Langley, P. and Carbonell, J.G. (1984), Approaches to machine learning. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 35: 306-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630350509 (Year: 1984)). More specifically, the use of a “Large Language Model” was ubiquitous in machine learning application to chatbots prior to the effective filing date of the instant application as indicated in the Wikipedia article, “Large language model” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_language_model&oldid=1256819127.
log interface, validation interface, graphical user interface represent using an "interface" to display information as in Affinity v DirecTV in which "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an 'inventive concept'. It held that the claims added 'only generic computer components such as an 'interface', 'network', and 'database' and that 'recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible". Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or "effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field". Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)".
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/720,417, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The provisional application (‘417) contains a total of 92 paragraphs, while the instant application contains 257 paragraphs and the instant application has added Figure 14 and Figure 15. The claims contain concepts that were introduced with the specification filed 14 November 2025 and were not present in the provisional filing dated 14 November 2024. For example: the provisional filing does not contain mention of at least “GRC knowledge data” that comprises “source data” and “enrichment data”; “impression content” for distribution via “one or more programmatic advertising platforms” (claim 1); the provisional filing does not contain mention of at least “conversation logs” (claim 2); the provisional filing does not contain mention of at least “an artificial-intelligence-based summary model” (claim 3); the provisional filing does not contain mention of at least “test queries” and “validation metrics” (claim 4); details of the source data are not found within the provisional (claim 5); Model Context Protocol (MCP) is not found in the provisional and was not introduced by its creator until 25 November 2024 (claim 6); receiving business parameters are not found within the provisional (claim 7); metadata comprising targeting data is not found within the provisional (claim 8); a physical advertising device is not found within the provisional (claim 9); a QR-code is not found within the provisional filing (claim 10); fallback advertisements on LLM error are not found within the provisional (claim 11); urchin tracking module (UTM) is not found within the provisional (claim 12); and replacing source data with updated source is not found within the provisional (claim 13).
Therefore, the claims are only afforded priority to the effective filing date of 14 November 2025 rather than the date of the provisional.
References of Record but not Applied in the Current Grounds of Rejection
The prior art listed below is made of record as considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is not relied upon in the grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Those starred with '*' were added to this list in this Office action. Those without "*" were added in a previous Office action and are not repeated on a PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form, but are maintained herein for informational purposes only.
* Kim Eun Hyun (Pub. #: KR 20260012556 A) discloses an advertising system that includes an AI powered chatbot to handle user queries.
* Yenduri et al., in “GPT (generative pre-trained transformer)—a comprehensive review on enabling technologies, potential applications, emerging challenges, and future directions” discusses the use of LLM/GPT systems in a variety of fields, including marketing and customer support chatbots.
Examiner's Note on the Format of the Prior Art Rejections
The prior art rejections below contain underlined markings of the limitations (e.g. sample limitation). The underlined portions of a claim are addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim. Examiner notes that the underlining of the claim language is not a statement that the primary reference does not teach that language, but simply that said claim language is addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Gross et al. (Pub. #: US 2026/0087527 A1).
Claim(s) 1:
A system for providing generative response content (GRC) within digital impressions, the system comprising a memory and one or more processors configured to:
receive, using the one or more processors, GRC knowledge data for storage in the memory, wherein the GRC knowledge data comprises source data and user input defining enrichment data for the source data;
(Gross discloses receiving "content index" and "chat history of interactions between the user and the chatbot" that is fed into the "chatbot language model" in at least 0110-0112.)
receive, using the one or more processors, impression content, wherein the impression content is configured for distribution using one or more programmatic advertising platforms;
(Gross discloses an advertiser providing "pre-generated advertisements" that are for distribution based on matching the advertisement goals with web pages in at least 0060-0063. Also see 0049-0052.)
generate, using the one or more processors, a digital impression with GRC by including a conversational interface within the impression content, wherein the conversational interface uses a large language model (LLM) trained to generate responses using the GRC knowledge data;
(Gross discloses advertisements with "chatbots directly in the advertisement unit" that allow the user to "ask questions or otherwise start a conversation" and that the advertisements use "large language model technology" in at least 0100-0107.)
and providing, using the one or more processors, the digital impression with GRC for distribution over a network by the one or more programmatic advertising platforms to end user devices according to a distribution algorithm.
(Gross discloses an advertiser providing "pre-generated advertisements" that are for distribution based on matching the advertisement goals with web pages in at least 0060-0063. Gross discloses making a "bid in accordance with the supplemental source's preferences, and if it wins the auction, delivers the pre-generated supplemental content to the web page 512" in at least 0073.)
Claim(s) 8:
wherein the impression content comprises metadata defining target end users and wherein the distribution algorithm uses the metadata for distributing the digital impression with GRC to the target end users;
(Gross discloses selecting advertisement slots for presenting the advertisements based on user profiles and content data in at least 0076-0081, and 0088-0090.)
wherein the GRC knowledge data comprises a plurality of end user profiles, wherein each end user profile comprises source data, enrichment data, and one or more end user definitions;
(Gross discloses chatbot interaction with an AI chatbot wherein the chatbot is tailored/prompted with user profiles in at least 0088 and 0111, "supplemental content" that comprises at least "definitions or explanations of technical terminology used in the primary content" in at least 0113.)
and wherein generating the digital impression with GRC comprises using the metadata of the impression content and GRC knowledge data within an end user profile matching the target end users of the metadata of the impression content to generate the conversational interface.
(Gross discloses advertisements with "chatbots directly in the advertisement unit" that allow the user to "ask questions or otherwise start a conversation" and that the advertisements use "large language model technology" in at least 0100-0107.)
Claim(s) 9:
wherein the digital impression with GRC is one of:
a banner advertisement for a webpage;
(Gross discloses that advertisements may comprise banner advertisements in at least 0023.)
an advertisement for display via a physical advertising device;
(Gross discloses providing advertisements via "a computing device" which is a type of physical device in at least 0074.)
an audio advertisement for presentation to users using an audio output device;
(Gross discloses audio advertisement/content in at least 0048, 0072, 0085)
a television commercial for display using a television configured for interactivity with an end user;
(Gross discloses advertisements for TV in at least 0161. Gross discloses advertisements with "chatbots directly in the advertisement unit" that allow the user to "ask questions or otherwise start a conversation" and that the advertisements use "large language model technology" in at least 0100-0107.)
advertising content accessible using a link provided to an end user.
(Gross discloses an advertiser providing "pre-generated advertisements" that are for distribution along with web pages in at least 0060-0063. Gross discloses interacting with users via provided URLs in at least 0073.)
Claim(s) 13:
wherein receiving the GRC knowledge data comprises replacing the source data with updated source data.
(Gross discloses creating the chatbot interface using supplemental content in addition to the primary content in at least 0110 and further provides the user chat interaction data to the LLM as "additional context" in at least 0112. Both of these operations can be interpreted as "updated source data".)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gross et al. (Pub. #: US 2026/0087527 A1) in view of
Talmor et al. (Pub. # US 2019/0043106 A1).
Claim(s) 2:
receive, using the one or more processors, interaction data comprising one or more conversation logs for conversations with end users using the conversational interface within the digital impression with GRC;
(Gross discloses receiving "content index" and "chat history of interactions between the user and the chatbot" that is fed into the "chatbot language model" in at least 0110-0112.)
and generate, using the one or more processors, a log interface comprising the interaction data.
Gross discloses presenting user interfaces for "editorial controls" for an advertiser in at least 0064. Gross does not appear to specify a user interface for review of the chat logs. However, Talmor teaches a technique for displaying past chat interactions with advertisements that include a chatbot functionality in at least Figure 5, 0015, and 0142-0145.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisements with chatbot functionality system of Gross with the technique of using a GUI to review chat data from advertisements that include chatbot functionality as taught by Talmor. Motivation to combine Gross with Talmor derives from both references pertaining to advertisements that include chatbot functionality and to automated interactions with end users to avoid overwhelming a merchant/advertiser's representatives (Talmor: 0004).
Claim(s) 5:
wherein receiving the GRC knowledge data comprises: receiving source data comprising one or more of: a webpage uniform resource locator (URL), a text file, an image file, or a video file;
receiving user input defining enrichment data for each source data using a graphical user interface; and storing each source data with the enrichment data received for corresponding source data.
Gross discloses prompting the LLM with "information retrieved about the advertised product" which may be sourced "from the advertiser's website" and further based on "the primary content of the context in which the advertisement unit 710 has been inserted" (i.e., the web page wherein the ad is presented) in at least 0109-0112. Gross does not appear to make explicit receiving the data from the advertiser via a graphical user interface. However, Talmor teaches a technique for presenting a graphical user interface wherein an advertiser inputs advertisement information for advertisements that include chatbot functionality within the advertisement in at least Figure 3 and 0122-0134. Talmor further teaches that this information includes a destination URL, images and advertisement copy in the same citations.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisements with chatbot functionality system of Gross with the techniques of using a GUI to receive input from an advertiser regarding advertisements that include chatbot functionality as taught by Talmor. Motivation to combine Gross with Talmor derives from both references pertaining to advertisements that include chatbot functionality and to automated interactions with end users to avoid overwhelming a merchant/advertiser's representatives (Talmor: 0004).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gross et al. (Pub. #: US 2026/0087527 A1) in view of
Agarwal et al. (Pub. #: US 2026/0106846 A1).
Claim(s) 3:
generating the log interface comprises using an artificial intelligence-based summary model to generate a summary of the interaction data.
Gross, in view of Talmor, disclose a GUI for reviewing chat data as described in the parent claim. Gross, in view of Talmor, does not appear to specify generating a summary of past interaction data. However, Agarwal teaches a technique of using artificial intelligence to summarize the "chat history" of a user with an AI agent in at least 0010-0013, and 0017-0024.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisements with chatbot functionality system of Gross, in view of Talmor, with the technique of summarizing a chat history between a user and an AI agent as taught by Agarwal. Motivation to combine Gross, in view of Talmor, with Agarwal derives from the desire to provide succinct information to a user of a system via a summary of the source data (Agarwal: 0001-0005).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gross et al. (Pub. #: US 2026/0087527 A1) in view of
Gao et al. (Pub. #: US 2023/0036072 A1).
Claim(s) 4:
provide one or more test queries to the conversational interface;
validate responses generated by the conversational interface by comparing the responses with the GRC knowledge data;
generate a validation metric based at least in part on the validating;
and generate a validation user interface for presentation to an administrator, wherein the validation user interface comprises the validation metric.
Gross discloses checking AI performance using supplemental content that may be "fact checking" in at least 0026, 0042, and 0044. Gross does not appear to specify using test queries and comparing the results with the knowledge base, generating and presenting validation metrics to an administrator. However, Gao teaches techniques for testing chatbots via use of test queries and validation metrics in at least 0137, 0138, 0163-0168 and presenting the results in a "dashboard" in at least 0162.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisements with chatbot functionality system of Gross with the techniques for testing chatbots as taught by Gao. Motivation to combine Gross with Gao derives from both references pertaining to AI chatbots and to automatically test "chatbot responses" (Gao: 0004).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gross et al. (Pub. #: US 2026/0087527 A1) in view of
Anthropic in “Introducing the Model Context Protocol” published 25 November 2024 (https://web.archive.org/web/20241125215803/https://www.anthropic.com/news/model-context-protocol).
Claim(s) 6:
wherein generating the digital impression with GRC comprises accessing the LLM using one of: an Application Program Interface (API) or a Model Context Protocol (MCP).
Gross discloses advertisements with "chatbots directly in the advertisement unit" that allow the user to "ask questions or otherwise start a conversation" and that the advertisements use "large language model technology" in at least 0100-0107. Gross does not appear to specify using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) when interfacing with the LLM. However, Anthropic teaches a technique for interfacing with AI assistants in at least the first 3 paragraphs.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisements with chatbot functionality system of Gross with the specific interface technique of MCP for interfacing with an AI assistant as taught by Anthropic. Motivation to combine Gross with Anthropic derives from the desire to have a "simpler, more reliable way to give AI systems access to the data they need" (Anthropic: second paragraph).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gross et al. (Pub. #: US 2026/0087527 A1) in view of
Abhyankar et al. (Pub. #: US 2025/0284963 A1).
Claim(s) 7:
receive business parameters defining a behavior for the conversational interface, wherein the conversational interface within the digital impression is configured to interact with end users according to the business parameters.
Gross discloses advertisements with "chatbots directly in the advertisement unit" that allow the user to "ask questions or otherwise start a conversation" and that the advertisements use "large language model technology" in at least 0100-0107. Gross does not appear to specify supplying business parameters to the conversational interface to adjust the interaction with end users. However, Abhyankar teaches a technique for a business AI chatbot whereby the business user can input data to an interface to adjust the behavior of the chatbot in at least Figure 6D, 0045-0050, 0116-0118.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisements with chatbot functionality system of Gross with the settings interface as taught by Abhyankar. Motivation to combine Gross with Abhyankar derives from both references pertaining to AI chatbots and to customize the chatbot's response according to a business's needs (Abhyankar: 0117).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gross et al. (Pub. #: US 2026/0087527 A1) in view of
Knezi et al. (Pub. #: US 2022/0284495 A1).
Claim(s) 10:
wherein the digital impression with GRC is advertising content accessible using a QR-code displayed to an end user.
Gross discloses an advertiser providing "pre-generated advertisements" that are for distribution along with web pages in at least 0060-0063. Gross does not appear to specify providing advertisements via QR-codes. However, Knezi teaches a technique of providing access to advertising content via use of a QR-code in at least 0124, 0128 and claim 26.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisement providing system of Gross with the technique of providing advertisements in response to QR-code scanning as taught by Knezi. Motivation to combine Gross with Knezi derives from the desire to remove barriers to a customer receiving "additional needed information" (Knezi: 0003).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gross et al. (Pub. #: US 2026/0087527 A1) in view of
Google, in “Overview of video fallback”, archived 2022 October 06,
https://web.archive.org/web/20221006064917/https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/3007370?hl=en.
Claim(s) 11:
receive alternative impression content that does not include a conversational interface; monitor the LLM for status changes; and upon detecting an error of the LLM, provide the alternative impression content for distribution over the network by the one or more programmatic advertising platforms to end user devices according to the distribution algorithm instead of the digital impression.
Gross does not appear to specify providing alternate non-conversational content to be displayed upon an error with the conversational content. However, Google teaches an advertisement management technique whereby multiple advertisements are provided in response to an ad request and upon an error with the primary advertisement, a fallback advertisement is provided.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisement providing system of Gross with the technique of providing fallback advertisement options as taught by Google. Motivation to combine Gross with Google derives from the desire to maximize the "likelihood of filling an impression opportunity" (Google: "Overview of video fallback").
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gross et al. (Pub. #: US 2026/0087527 A1) in view of
Talmor et al. (Pub. # US 2019/0043106 A1) in view of
Knezi et al. (Pub. #: US 2022/0284495 A1).
Claim(s) 12:
wherein the digital impression with GRC comprises an Urchin Tracking Module (UTM) parameter.
Gross discloses advertising tracking data related to advertisement impressions in at least 0057. Gross does not appear to specify use of an Urchin Tracking Module parameter. However, Knezi teaches a technique for user tracking that relies upon the industry standard of UTM in at least 0034.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisement providing system of Gross with the technique of UTM style tracking of users as taught by Knezi. Motivation to combine Gross with Knezi derives from the desire to remove barriers to a customer receiving "additional needed information" (Knezi: 0003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT SNIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-9604. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 9:00-4:30 Mountain (11:00-6:30 Eastern).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571)270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT SNIDER/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights