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 15, 2025 (“April 2025 Response”). The April 2025 Response contained “REMARKS” (“April 2025 Remarks”).
Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 and 13-19 have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-8 and 13-19 in the reply filed on April 15, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 15, 2025.
Related Applications
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 13/117,089 filed on May 26, 2011, now U.S. Patent 11,568,772 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “obtained locally within the digital license plate or externally from an external, the processor…”; however, there is no noun that follows the adjective “external.”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “obtained locally within the digital license plate or externally from an external, the processor…”; however, there is no noun that follows the adjective “external.” Instant specification paragraph 0021 recite “the communication device 140 may receive content, information, and/or data from a content database.”, thus in light of the specification, it is clear that claim is refereeing to external database.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 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.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 13-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Brubaker (US 2009/0299857 A1)(“Brubaker”).
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 (“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]).
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]) to earn reward (“the presenters of that content are financially rewarded on a per ad, per screen basis for the use of their platforms” [0067]), 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]).
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 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 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 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 by the proximity data of Trest and in particular to include in the proximity data of Brubaker, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Weber (US 2005/0024189 A1) which discloses “This invention is directed to advertising and information display systems, and more particularly to advertising, and informative displays for mobile vehicles.” ([0001]).
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/pate