DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on April 8, 2026 (“April 2026 Response”). The April 2026 Response contained, inter alia, claim amendments (“April 2026 Claims”), amendments to the abstract (“April 2026 Abstract”) and “RESPONSES/REMARKS” (“April 2026 Remarks”).
Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 and 13-19 have been examined.
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 1-8 and 13-19 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 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis for Products and Processes1 (“SME Analysis”):
Claims 1-8 and 13-19 are directed to at least one of the statutory categories.
Claims 1-8 are directed to a system.
Claims 13-19 are directed to a process.
Step 2A- Prong One of the SME Analysis:
Claim 13 (representative of independent Claim 1) recites/describes the following steps:
[mounting] a dynamic display of a [digital] license plate on an exterior of a vehicle;
obtaining content data either from [a storage device of] the [digital] license plate or a content database external to the [digital] license plate;
rendering content on the dynamic display based on the content data; and
generate an award data based on the content displayed on the dynamic display, such that the award data includes at least one baseball ticket to a baseball game featuring a team displayed in the content on the dynamic display, and the dynamic display displayed the content in an area with a low attendance at baseball games.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a method of generating a reward for displaying content on a vehicle, which amounts to a 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). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) obtaining content, rendering the content on the dynamic display, and generating an award based on the content displayed (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, Claim 13 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites/describes nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this claim is therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
As such, Claims 1-8 and 13-19 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A- Prong Two of the SME Analysis:
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
system, and processor (see Claim 1);
mounting (see Claim 13)/ “to be mounted” (see Claim 1);
the license plate being digital;
a storage device (of the digital license plate)(see Claims 8 and 13);
vehicle speed sensor (see Claim 3);
proximity sensor (see Claim 4); and
communication device (see Claims 7 and 8).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a “system,” “processor,” “storage device” (see Claims 8 and 13), vehicle speed sensor (see Claim 3), proximity sensor (see Claim 4), communication device (see Claims 7 and 8), and the license plate being digital is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “mounting” simply appends insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element is deemed “extra-solution” because it is tangential to the primary processor of rendering content and generating an award. This limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem.
The dependent claims fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims, that are not mentioned above, are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
Therefore, the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, Claims 1-8 and 13-19 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the SME Analysis:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a “system,” “processor,” “storage device” (see Claims 8 and 13), vehicle speed sensor (see Claim 3), proximity sensor (see Claim 4), communication device (see Claims 7 and 8), and the license plate being digital is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element of “mounting” simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This conclusion is based on a factual determination.
It is additionally, noted that:
The determination that associating/storing data in a database is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by the Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of associating/storing data in a database.
The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity).
The dependent claims fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims that are not mentioned above, are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
As such, no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above.
For the reasons stated above, Claims 1-8 and 13-19 as whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-5, 7-8, and 13-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brubaker (US 2009/0299857 A1)(“Brubaker”) in view of Powers (US 2002/0097193 A1)(“Powers”) and further in view of Hurowitz et al. (US 2008/0172292 A1)(“Hurowitz”).
As to Claim 1, Brubaker discloses a digital license plate (“the license plate and registration systems are also generated via digital video, as shown at 1048” [0299], “system…programmed to display identifying numbers (i.e., license plates) properly and prominently in accordance with set standards” [0072]) system (“lightweight video displays on or integral to the body panels, exterior finishes and/or glazing of both moving and stationary objects with an electronic means for the wireless transmission of stored, encoded user profiles containing the ad viewing preferences for the occupants of one moving object, to the receiving system in another moving or fixed object. The system enables the display of hyper-relevant ad content with synchronized remote audio, personal messaging and public service alerts on surrounding objects and provides for the real-time logging and later downloading of data to confirm communications and content deliveries between objects, track and measure consumer engagement, verify consumer's direct responses to ad viewings with accountability systems for moving object owner/operator Just Compensation.” [0069]) comprising:
a dynamic display (flat panel video display 761, “visual displays can be of any conventional type, such as thin film transistor (TFT) displays, organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays, or any other type of visual display suitable for the particular context of installation and use” [0361]) configured to be mounted on an exterior of a vehicle (see SUV 651, Figs.7-10)(“These elements are separately assembled, then mounted in various types of body panels…” [0234], see SUV 651, Figs.7-10, “means for displaying the content can be fixed or removable, can be attached to or integrated into moveable or stationary objects (including but not limited to cars, trains,…and other devices having, or capable of, being connected to a visual display” [0361]); and
a processor (“central processor,” [0237]) configured to render content on the dynamic display based on content data obtained locally within the digital license plate or externally from an external device (“This package, as will be later seen, contains the upload/download antennas, the central processor, and the hard drive for content and delivery instruction storage, along with supporting systems, sensors and drivers to control the video display.” [0237], “Looking first at New Vehicle Installations 600, we see incoming content requests represented by signals 740 (750 for Pre Existing Vehicles), received at receiver 744, where they are passed on to decoder 746. Once decoded, this information is sent to central processor 722, where it is polled and matched with previously established marketing criteria which in turn permits the selection and queuing of hyper relevant ads, public service, or personal content from hard drive 716. If signal 744 contains digital information for the reproduction of video, it will be decoded as such at 746, processed at 722, and sent to the display drivers 762, for presentation based on previously established delivery protocols.” [0246]), the processor being configured to generate an award (“the presenters of that content are financially rewarded on a per ad, per screen basis for the use of their platforms” [0067]) data (Logged Content Exposure 160 data) based on the content displayed on the dynamic display (“The system enables… provides for the real-time logging and later downloading of data to confirm communications and content deliveries between objects, track and measure consumer engagement, verify consumer's direct responses to ad viewings with accountability systems for moving object owner/operator Just Compensation.” [0069], “Antenna 715 enables the uploading of data and information gathered in the field which has been saved and stored on hard drive 716. Such information includes, but is not limited to: all Logged Content Exposure 160; Logged Public Service Exposure 162; Logged Advertising Requests from specific VINs 163; and Logged Advertising Exposure 164” [0249], “Vehicle owners will be paid based upon the number of impressions they deliver relative to the value of the demographic and the market served” [0267], “After field use, processor 718 uploads to the network all in-field content requests that have been stored on hard drives 719 via upload/download transceiver 714 and antenna 715. In so doing, the following types of information are sent to the Compensation unit 900: Logged In-Field Content Requests from non-display vehicles 165; Logged Advertising Requests by VIN, by venue and time 163; Logged Personal Use Authorizations (including any view blocking or personal ads) 167; and Logged Personal Use Exposures or impressions 168 by VIN, venue, and times” [0270], “Systems, devices and components can be implemented using hardware, firmware, software, or any combination thereof, including programmed or programmable data processors, fixed or removable memory or other storage media, input/output (I/O) devices and adapters, and the like.” [0361], “enable the uploading of information stored in moving objects relating to content, time, place, nature and trigger for any logged delivery, and to then process and to feedback that information to authorized government users, advertising agencies, advertisers or registered fleet, business or personal users for the purposes of tracking, engagement measurement, accounting, compensation or billing.” [0123], see also [0205]), [such that the award data includes at least one baseball ticket to a baseball game] featuring a team displayed in the content on the dynamic display (“For example, a land-based moving object might display the name or logo of its owner’s favorite sports team…, as a kind of ‘electronic bumper sticker’.” [0072]), and the dynamic display displayed the content in an area (“For example, a land-based moving object might display the name or logo of its owner’s favorite sports team…, as a kind of ‘electronic bumper sticker’.” [0072], “As vehicles equipped with the present invention approach sponsored venues, such as theme parks, sports stadiums, national parks, or airports, content representing those sponsors could appear on all of the objects moving in and around that immediate area.” [0305]) [with a low attendance at baseball games].
Brubaker does not directly disclose:
such that the award data includes at least one baseball ticket to a baseball game; and
an area with a low attendance at baseball games.
Powers teaches such that award data includes at least one ticket to a game (“displaying an advertising material on each one or more vehicles selected from the plurality of vehicles in the database,” [0010], “For examples, the payments may be based on free tickets to vehicle owners or operators to a local event, restaurant or similar venue or location in exchange for having the vehicle present. An example of this would be to have a number of vehicles show up for a sporting event in exchange for free tickets to that event.” [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the award data of Brubaker with the award data of Powers, and in particular to include in Brubaker’s award data, the feature that the award data includes at least one ticket to a game, as taught by Powers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these features because it would incentivize vehicle owners to display ads by providing “compensation they can derive from using their vehicles as a platform for advertising” (Powers, [0022]).
Hurowitz teaches
baseball tickets and games (“For example, a professional sports franchise, such as a baseball club, may have a game on a particular Sunday afternoon.” [0122], “Returning to the baseball example, a customer may have the actual tickets transmitted…” [0127]); and
an area with a low attendance at baseball games (“For an unknown reason, ticket sales on that particular day are down, and the club would like to fill the stadium, making perhaps less revenue but more than if the stadium were left empty. A couple of hours before game time, the club may wish to target individual customers who are in the general location of the baseball field. The customers in the defined geographical area may be able to more easily attend the game with late notice, for example. As such, the user (baseball club) has prepared dynamic content which advertises the game (with accompanying video, sounds, etc.)” [0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Brubaker/Powers combination with the features of Hurowitz, and in particular to: include in the kind of tickets for the games in Powers in the Brubaker/Powers combination, the baseball tickets and games, as taught by Hurowitz, because it would increase targeted advertising in a specific sports category, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and to include in the displayed area of Powers in the Brubaker/Powers combination, the feature that it is in an area with a low attendance at baseball games, as taught by Hurowitz, because it would help to “fill the stadium, making perhaps less revenue but more than if the stadium were left empty” (Hurowitz, [0122]).
The Examiner notes:
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). (See MPEP 2114 §II.)
The Examiner also notes:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). (See MPEP 2112.01 §I.)
As such, it is additionally noted that in addition to the above, the feature of employing the claimed system in “an area with a low attendance at baseball games” does not differentiate the claimed system from that of Brubaker.
As to Claim 2, Brubaker discloses wherein the processor further uses data on how long the content was displayed, when the content was displayed, and where the content was displayed to determine the award data generated (“Such integral measurements reveal what content was viewed, precisely where it was viewed (based on GPS data), when and by whom it was viewed (in significant demographic detail), and for exactly how long.” [0033], “delivery fees based on the market value of specific times, places, and priorities” [0279], “The requesting and delivery of content is itself a source of checks and balances. Each request is linked to a specific VIN… Next the precise time and place of each request and each delivery is documented via GPS, along with exacting data as to the speed, the relative speed, proximity, attitude and direction of travel for the all of the vehicles involved.” “deliveries are carefully counted along with the duration of each delivery (since completed deliveries are important to the quality of service and to ultimate billings and compensation)” [0292]).
As to Claim 3, Brubaker discloses a vehicle speed sensor (on-board speed/motion sensor 774) configured to detect a speed of the vehicle (“calculate the proximity and the relative positions and closing speeds between a viewed and a viewing vehicle” [0248]), wherein the processor determines the content to be rendered on the dynamic display based on the content data available and the speed of the vehicle (“While being constantly monitored for any incoming priority overrides at central processor 722, queued content is checked against the on-board speed/motion sensor 774 and the on-board proximity sensor 770, which establishes a vehicle range signal 772, necessary to calculate the proximity and the relative positions and closing speeds between a viewed and a viewing vehicle. When previously established delivery criteria are met (content, time, place, speed, position, priorities, and previous deliveries), the selected content is released to display drivers 762 and to audio transmitter 725. The display drivers send video content to display 760, which enables the video imagery indicated at 764.” [0248]).
As to Claim 4, Brubaker discloses a proximity sensor (on-board speed/motion sensor 774) configured to generate a proximity data based on an immediate surrounding of the vehicle (“calculate the proximity and the relative positions and closing speeds between a viewed and a viewing vehicle” [0248]), the processor being configured to determine the content to be rendered on the dynamic display based on the proximity data and the content data available (“While being constantly monitored for any incoming priority overrides at central processor 722, queued content is checked against the on-board speed/motion sensor 774 and the on-board proximity sensor 770, which establishes a vehicle range signal 772, necessary to calculate the proximity and the relative positions and closing speeds between a viewed and a viewing vehicle. When previously established delivery criteria are met (content, time, place, speed, position, priorities, and previous deliveries), the selected content is released to display drivers 762 and to audio transmitter 725. The display drivers send video content to display 760, which enables the video imagery indicated at 764.” [0248]).
As to Claim 5, Brubaker discloses wherein the proximity data includes information related to a proximal vehicle near the vehicle, a driver of the proximal vehicle, or a passenger of the proximal vehicle (“calculate the proximity and the relative positions and closing speeds between a viewed and a viewing vehicle” [0248]).
As to Claim 7, Brubaker discloses a communication device (“User Selector” [0254]) configured to receive user input from a user device (“At 780, the User Selector permits a Registered Owner and, if desired, any member of a family or business, to activate his personal preferences with regard to that VIN's outgoing content requests. Again, the individual user names, passwords, preferences, and their individual priorities are maintained online and are authorized for use only on a specific VIN and then only by its System Administrator (usually the Registered Owner). The human interface will likely be a small touch screen which presents the user names that are currently active for the VIN (in other words, a text or icon listing of the individuals whose profiles are currently active and influencing the display of advertising and communications on other moving or stationary objects in the vicinity). Such a display might optionally indicate the relative percentages to which each user influences outgoing content requests and possibly which user's content requests are currently being displayed.” [0254]), wherein the processor determines the content to be rendered on the dynamic display based on the content data available and the user input (“Once decoded, this information is sent to central processor 722, where it is polled and matched with previously established marketing criteria which in turn permits the selection and queuing of hyper relevant ads, public service, or personal content from hard drive 716. If signal 744 contains digital information for the reproduction of video, it will be decoded as such at 746, processed at 722, and sent to the display drivers 762, for presentation based on previously established delivery protocols.” [0246]).
As to Claim 8, Brubaker discloses a storage device (hard drive 716) configured to store content data (“selection and queuing of hyper relevant ads, public service, or personal content from hard drive 716...” [0246]); and a communication device (receiver 744) configured to receive the content data from the external device (“Looking first at New Vehicle Installations 600, we see incoming content requests represented by signals 740 (750 for Pre Existing Vehicles), received at receiver 744, where they are passed on to decoder 746.” [0246]), wherein the processor either stores the content data in the storage device or uses the content data to render content on the dynamic display through data streaming (“Looking first at New Vehicle Installations 600, we see incoming content requests represented by signals 740 (750 for Pre Existing Vehicles), received at receiver 744, where they are passed on to decoder 746. Once decoded, this information is sent to central processor 722, where it is polled and matched with previously established marketing criteria which in turn permits the selection and queuing of hyper relevant ads, public service, or personal content from hard drive 716. If signal 744 contains digital information for the reproduction of video, it will be decoded as such at 746, processed at 722, and sent to the display drivers 762, for presentation based on previously established delivery protocols.” [0246], “At 454, owners are given the chance create personal messages. These can be posted instantly and spontaneously, or on a scheduled basis, on an owner's own vehicle, or on other vehicles based on a standard rate” “Such content is submitted by the Registered Owner online and once screened, can be scheduled for automated release, or can be stored on the VIN's hard drive for spontaneous or manual release by the owner in the field.” [0224]).
As to Claim 13, Brubaker discloses a method of rendering content on an exterior of a vehicle (“lightweight video displays on or integral to the body panels, exterior finishes and/or glazing of both moving and stationary objects with an electronic means for the wireless transmission of stored, encoded user profiles containing the ad viewing preferences for the occupants of one moving object, to the receiving system in another moving or fixed object. The system enables the display of hyper-relevant ad content with synchronized remote audio, personal messaging and public service alerts on surrounding objects and provides for the real-time logging and later downloading of data to confirm communications and content deliveries between objects, track and measure consumer engagement, verify consumer's direct responses to ad viewings with accountability systems for moving object owner/operator Just Compensation.” [0069]), the method comprising the steps of:
mounting a dynamic display of a digital license plate (“the license plate and registration systems are also generated via digital video, as shown at 1048” [0299], “system…programmed to display identifying numbers (i.e., license plates) properly and prominently in accordance with set standards” [0072], flat panel video display 761, “visual displays can be of any conventional type, such as thin film transistor (TFT) displays, organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays, or any other type of visual display suitable for the particular context of installation and use” [0361]) on an exterior of a vehicle (see SUV 651, Figs.7-10);
obtaining content data (“Content can be stored on board a viewed vehicle, a viewing vehicle, or on both. Video content stored on a viewed (display) vehicle is normally queued and displayed from that vehicle's self contained hard drive storage medium” [0085], “hyper relevant ads, public service, or personal content” [0246]) either from a storage device (hard drive 716) of the digital license plate or a content database external to the digital license plate (“storing all information received that is downloaded from a network or is logged in the field as a result of intercommunication between various moving objects” [0085], “This package, as will be later seen, contains the upload/download antennas, the central processor, and the hard drive for content and delivery instruction storage, along with supporting systems, sensors and drivers to control the video display.” [0237], “Looking first at New Vehicle Installations 600, we see incoming content requests represented by signals 740 (750 for Pre Existing Vehicles), received at receiver 744, where they are passed on to decoder 746. Once decoded, this information is sent to central processor 722, where it is polled and matched with previously established marketing criteria which in turn permits the selection and queuing of hyper relevant ads, public service, or personal content from hard drive 716. If signal 744 contains digital information for the reproduction of video, it will be decoded as such at 746, processed at 722, and sent to the display drivers 762, for presentation based on previously established delivery protocols.” [0246]);
rendering content on the dynamic display based on the content data (“If signal 744 contains digital information for the reproduction of video, it will be decoded as such at 746, processed at 722, and sent to the display drivers 762, for presentation based on previously established delivery protocols.” [0246], “Content can be stored on board a viewed vehicle, a viewing vehicle, or on both. Video content stored on a viewed (display) vehicle is normally queued and displayed from that vehicle's self contained hard drive storage medium” [0085]); and
generate an award (“the presenters of that content are financially rewarded on a per ad, per screen basis for the use of their platforms” [0067]) data (Logged Content Exposure 160 data) based on the content displayed on the dynamic display (“The system enables… provides for the real-time logging and later downloading of data to confirm communications and content deliveries between objects, track and measure consumer engagement, verify consumer's direct responses to ad viewings with accountability systems for moving object owner/operator Just Compensation.” [0069], “Antenna 715 enables the uploading of data and information gathered in the field which has been saved and stored on hard drive 716. Such information includes, but is not limited to: all Logged Content Exposure 160; Logged Public Service Exposure 162; Logged Advertising Requests from specific VINs 163; and Logged Advertising Exposure 164” [0249], “Vehicle owners will be paid based upon the number of impressions they deliver relative to the value of the demographic and the market served” [0267], “After field use, processor 718 uploads to the network all in-field content requests that have been stored on hard drives 719 via upload/download transceiver 714 and antenna 715. In so doing, the following types of information are sent to the Compensation unit 900: Logged In-Field Content Requests from non-display vehicles 165; Logged Advertising Requests by VIN, by venue and time 163; Logged Personal Use Authorizations (including any view blocking or personal ads) 167; and Logged Personal Use Exposures or impressions 168 by VIN, venue, and times” [0270], “Systems, devices and components can be implemented using hardware, firmware, software, or any combination thereof, including programmed or programmable data processors, fixed or removable memory or other storage media, input/output (I/O) devices and adapters, and the like.” [0361], “enable the uploading of information stored in moving objects relating to content, time, place, nature and trigger for any logged delivery, and to then process and to feedback that information to authorized government users, advertising agencies, advertisers or registered fleet, business or personal users for the purposes of tracking, engagement measurement, accounting, compensation or billing.” [0123], see also [0205]) [such that the award data includes at least one baseball ticket to a baseball game] featuring a team displayed in the content on the dynamic display (“For example, a land-based moving object might display the name or logo of its owner’s favorite sports team…, as a kind of ‘electronic bumper sticker’.” [0072]), and the dynamic display displayed the content in an area (“For example, a land-based moving object might display the name or logo of its owner’s favorite sports team…, as a kind of ‘electronic bumper sticker’.” [0072], “As vehicles equipped with the present invention approach sponsored venues, such as theme parks, sports stadiums, national parks, or airports, content representing those sponsors could appear on all of the objects moving in and around that immediate area.” [0305]) [with a low attendance at baseball games].
Brubaker does not directly disclose
such that the award data includes at least one baseball ticket to a baseball game; and
an area with a low attendance at baseball games.
Powers teaches such that award data includes at least one ticket to a game (“displaying an advertising material on each one or more vehicles selected from the plurality of vehicles in the database,” [0010], “For examples, the payments may be based on free tickets to vehicle owners or operators to a local event, restaurant or similar venue or location in exchange for having the vehicle present. An example of this would be to have a number of vehicles show up for a sporting event in exchange for free tickets to that event.” [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the award data of Brubaker with the award data of Powers, and in particular to include in Brubaker’s award data, the feature that the award data includes at least one ticket to a game, as taught by Powers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these features because it would incentivize vehicle owners to display ads by providing “compensation they can derive from using their vehicles as a platform for advertising” (Powers, [0022]).
Hurowitz teaches
baseball tickets and games (“For example, a professional sports franchise, such as a baseball club, may have a game on a particular Sunday afternoon.” [0122], “Returning to the baseball example, a customer may have the actual tickets transmitted..” [0127]); and
an area with a low attendance at baseball games (“For an unknown reason, ticket sales on that particular day are down, and the club would like to fill the stadium, making perhaps less revenue but more than if the stadium were left empty. A couple of hours before game time, the club may wish to target individual customers who are in the general location of the baseball field. The customers in the defined geographical area may be able to more easily attend the game with late notice, for example. As such, the user (baseball club) has prepared dynamic content which advertises the game (with accompanying video, sounds, etc.)” [0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Brubaker/Powers combination with the features of Hurowitz, and in particular to: include in the kind of tickets for the games in Powers in the Brubaker/Powers combination, the baseball tickets and games, as taught by Hurowitz, because it would increase targeted advertising in a specific sports category, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and to include in the displayed area of Powers in the Brubaker/Powers combination, the feature that it is an area with a low attendance at baseball games, as taught by Hurowitz, because it would help to “fill the stadium, making perhaps less revenue but more than if the stadium were left empty” (Hurowitz, [0122]).
As to Claim 14, Brubaker discloses the step of using data on how long the content was displayed, when the content was displayed, and where the content was displayed to determine the award data generated (“Such integral measurements reveal what content was viewed, precisely where it was viewed (based on GPS data), when and by whom it was viewed (in significant demographic detail), and for exactly how long.” [0033], “delivery fees based on the market value of specific times, places, and priorities” [0279], “The requesting and delivery of content is itself a source of checks and balances. Each request is linked to a specific VIN… Next the precise time and place of each request and each delivery is documented via GPS, along with exacting data as to the speed, the relative speed, proximity, attitude and direction of travel for the all of the vehicles involved.” “deliveries are carefully counted along with the duration of each delivery (since completed deliveries are important to the quality of service and to ultimate billings and compensation)” [0292]).
As to Claim 15, Brubaker discloses the steps of: detecting a speed of the vehicle (“calculate the proximity and the relative positions and closing speeds between a viewed and a viewing vehicle” [0248]); and determining the content to be rendered on the dynamic display based on the content data available and the speed of the vehicle (“While being constantly monitored for any incoming priority overrides at central processor 722, queued content is checked against the on-board speed/motion sensor 774 and the on-board proximity sensor 770, which establishes a vehicle range signal 772, necessary to calculate the proximity and the relative positions and closing speeds between a viewed and a viewing vehicle. When previously established delivery criteria are met (content, time, place, speed, position, priorities, and previous deliveries), the selected content is released to display drivers 762 and to audio transmitter 725. The display drivers send video content to display 760, which enables the video imagery indicated at 764.” [0248]).
As to Claim 16, Brubaker discloses the steps of: generating a proximity data (“a small green dot will appear on the rear-facing display of Vehicle G. As the driver of Vehicle H continues forward, this spot will grow increasingly amber and finally red which indicates the optimum stopping point for best viewing through vehicle H's windshield. At this point, the dot will disappear and content viewing will commence.” [0342]) based on an immediate surrounding of the vehicle (“calculate the proximity and the relative positions and closing speeds between a viewed and a viewing vehicle” [0248]); determining the content to be rendered on the dynamic display based on the content data available and the proximity data generated (“While being constantly monitored for any incoming priority overrides at central processor 722, queued content is checked against the on-board speed/motion sensor 774 and the on-board proximity sensor 770, which establishes a vehicle range signal 772, necessary to calculate the proximity and the relative positions and closing speeds between a viewed and a viewing vehicle. When previously established delivery criteria are met (content, time, place, speed, position, priorities, and previous deliveries), the selected content is released to display drivers 762 and to audio transmitter 725. The display drivers send video content to display 760, which enables the video imagery indicated at 764.” [0248]).
As to Claim 17, Brubaker discloses wherein the step of generating the proximity data includes the steps of:
detecting information on a proximal vehicle near the vehicle (“the respective VINs of the two vehicles,” [0342]), a driver of the proximal vehicle, or a passenger of the proximal vehicle; and
generating the proximity data based on at least one of the information on a proximal vehicle near the vehicle, a driver of the proximal vehicle, or a passenger of the proximal vehicle (“Note that at 1745, Vehicle D has requested content from Vehicle C. Vehicle C can select and queue that content; however, it cannot present it until Vehicle D has come to a full stop at a predetermined range behind Vehicle C,” “a small green dot will appear on the rear-facing display of Vehicle G. As the driver of Vehicle H continues forward, this spot will grow increasingly amber and finally red which indicates the optimum stopping point for best viewing through vehicle H's windshield. At this point, the dot will disappear and content viewing will commence.” [0342]).
As to Claim 18, Brubaker discloses detecting a response by a driver or a passenger of the proximal vehicle to the message displayed on the dynamic display (“As the driver of Vehicle H continues forward, this spot will grow increasingly amber and finally red which indicates the optimum stopping point for best viewing through vehicle H's windshield. At this point, the dot will disappear and content viewing will commence.” [0342]); and updating the proximity data based on the detected response by a driver or a passenger of the proximal vehicle to the message displayed on the dynamic display (“Note that at 1745, Vehicle D has requested content from Vehicle C. Vehicle C can select and queue that content; however, it cannot present it until Vehicle D has come to a full stop at a predetermined range behind Vehicle C,” “a small green dot will appear on the rear-facing display of Vehicle G. As the driver of Vehicle H continues forward, this spot will grow increasingly amber and finally red which indicates the optimum stopping point for best viewing through vehicle H's windshield. At this point, the dot will disappear and content viewing will commence.” [0342]).
As to Claim 19, Brubaker discloses the steps of: receiving a user input from a user device (“At 780, the User Selector permits a Registered Owner and, if desired, any member of a family or business, to activate his personal preferences with regard to that VIN's outgoing content requests. Again, the individual user names, passwords, preferences, and their individual priorities are maintained online and are authorized for use only on a specific VIN and then only by its System Administrator (usually the Registered Owner). The human interface will likely be a small touch screen which presents the user names that are currently active for the VIN (in other words, a text or icon listing of the individuals whose profiles are currently active and influencing the display of advertising and communications on other moving or stationary objects in the vicinity). Such a display might optionally indicate the relative percentages to which each user influences outgoing content requests and possibly which user's content requests are currently being displayed.” [0254]); and determining the content to be rendered on the dynamic display based on the content data available and the user input (“Once decoded, this information is sent to central processor 722, where it is polled and matched with previously established marketing criteria which in turn permits the selection and queuing of hyper relevant ads, public service, or personal content from hard drive 716. If signal 744 contains digital information for the reproduction of video, it will be decoded as such at 746, processed at 722, and sent to the display drivers 762, for presentation based on previously established delivery protocols.” [0246]).
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brubaker (US 2009/0299857 A1)(“Brubaker”) in view of Powers, in view of Hurowitz, and further in view of Trest (US 2010/0036717 A1)(“Trest”).
As to Claim 6, Brubaker does not directly disclose wherein the proximity data includes a response by a driver or a passenger of the proximal vehicle to the message displayed on the dynamic display.
Trest teaches proximity data includes a response by a driver or a passenger of the proximal vehicle to the message displayed on the dynamic display (“An example of this type of selection is when a person approaches car 5, the proximity sensor activates audio/video presentation inviting the person to interact with system 10. The input of the person is context data used as the basis from which to select or generate audio/video advertising for presentation.” [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the proximity data of Brubaker in the Brubaker/Powers/Hurowitz combination by the proximity data of Trest, and in particular to include in the proximity data of Brubaker (in the Brubaker/Powers/Hurowitz combination), the response by a driver or a passenger of the proximal vehicle to the message displayed on the dynamic display, as taught by Trest.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these features because it would help to provide more targeted advertising.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a vehicle speed sensor configured to detect a speed of the vehicle” in Claim 3, “a proximity sensor configured to generate a proximity data based on an immediate surrounding of the vehicle” in Claim 4, “a communication device configured to receive user input from a user device” in Claim 7, “a storage device configured to store content data” in Claim 8 and “a communication device configured to receive the content data from the external device” in Claim 8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the April 2026 Remarks have been fully considered and addressed below.
On page 8, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because they do not recite a mental process. Firstly, as discussed in the rejection, the claims recite an abstract idea because the steps of the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a method of generating a reward for displaying content on a vehicle, which amounts to a 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). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. Secondly, the rejection states that alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) obtaining content, rendering the content on the dynamic display, and generating an award based on the content displayed (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claims fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas, and alternatively, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) obtaining content, rendering the content on the dynamic display, and generating an award based on the content displayed (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. Furthermore, Applicant points to the elements that are not part of the abstract idea to make the point that the claims are not abstract idea. However, as discussed in the rejection, the claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: system, and processor (see Claim 1); mounting (see Claim 13)/ “to be mounted” (see Claim 1); the license plate being digital; a storage device (of the digital license plate)(see Claims 8 and 13); vehicle speed sensor (see Claim 3); proximity sensor (see Claim 4); and communication device (see Claims 7 and 8), that are discussed in Step 2A- Prong Two of the SME Analysis, which are not considered part of the abstract idea. Thus, the argument is found unpersuasive.
On pages 8-10, Applicant argues that the ordered combination of the steps in the claim “imposes many specific and meaningful limitations that in no way monopolizes the generic concept…” and that they “further improve the functioning of the rendering content on an exterior of a vehicle by extending functionality beyond what has previously been performed by such devices (see arguments with respect to the cited references, below). Claim 13 is therefore integrated into a practical application for this reason…” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claims may render specific content on the exterior of a vehicle via a display, the functionality of a display is not improved. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
On page 10, Applicant argues that the rejection does not “‘take into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application’ as required by MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III).” Adding that “nowhere does the Office Action analyze further the full limitation of the claims including ‘obtaining content data either from a storage device of the digital license plate or a content database external to the digital license plate’ and ‘rendering content on the dynamic display based on the content data’. None of these are steps capable of being performed by the mind. That is, the mind cannot obtain content from a storage database or content database and then render content on the dynamic display.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees as this is addressed in Step 2B of the SME Analysis. The rejection states that:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a “system,” “processor,” “storage device” (see Claims 8 and 13), vehicle speed sensor (see Claim 3), proximity sensor (see Claim 4), communication device (see Claims 7 and 8), and the license plate being digital is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element of “mounting” simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This conclusion is based on a factual determination.
It is additionally, noted that:
The determination that associating/storing data in a database is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by the Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of associating/storing data in a database.
The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity).
On Page 11, Applicant argues that if elements of a claim are not shown to be “well understood” and “routine” that this shows that claims are confined to a practical application of the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s logic in this argument does not follow the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis for Products and Processes as set forth in MPEP §2106 III. In fact, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that “the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On pages 12-13, Applicant argues that “Brubaker is absolutely silent as to the process generates the award data that includes at least one baseball ticket to a baseball game featuring a team displayed in the content on the dynamic display, and the dynamic display displayed the content in an area with a low attendance at baseball games. Nowhere does Brubaker disclose displaying content on the license plate in area with low attendance at baseball games.” The Examiner agrees. The current rejection of the claims relies on Brubaker in combination with Powers and Hurowitz to address the newly amended claim limitations.
On pages 14-15, Applicant argues supposed pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph rejections. However, the previous and current office action contain no such rejections. Therefore, the argument is moot.
On pages 14-15, Applicant’s statements that the structures pertaining to: “a vehicle speed sensor configured to detect a speed of the vehicle” in Claim 3, “a proximity sensor configured to generate a proximity data based on an immediate surrounding of the vehicle” in Claim 4, “a communication device configured to receive user input from a user device” in Claim 7, “a storage device configured to store content data” in Claim 8 and “a communication device configured to receive the content data from the external device” in Claim 8, are supported by the specification, are acknowledged. However, the Office Action does not state that structures are not recited in the specification. As discussed in the “Claim Interpretation” section of the Office Action:
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a vehicle speed sensor configured to detect a speed of the vehicle” in Claim 3, “a proximity sensor configured to generate a proximity data based on an immediate surrounding of the vehicle” in Claim 4, “a communication device configured to receive user input from a user device” in Claim 7, “a storage device configured to store content data” in Claim 8 and “a communication device configured to receive the content data from the external device” in Claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Findlay et al. (US 2007/0011051 A1)(“Findlay”) which discloses “An advertising system for displaying adaptive advertisements that can change the displayed content in response to external inputs can be used in public places such as transit stations, arenas, stadiums, retail stores, and squares. The advertising system can also be deployed in transit vehicles.” (Abstract), and also discloses “Thus, it would be possible to design an adaptive advertisement that was played only under certain circumstance, such as an advertisement for tickets to a playoff game for a sports team that would only be played if the team had not been eliminated from the playoffs.” ([0033]).
Applicant’s amendment filed on April 8, 2026 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA A MANDEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/M.A.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis for Products and Processes in MPEP §2106 III.
Prosecution Insights