DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 1, 2025 has been entered.
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s RCE and accompanying “RESPONSE TO FINAL OFFICE ACTION” (hereinafter “Amendment”), both of which were concurrently filed on December 1, 2025. In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1-2, 6-7, 16-17, 20, 25-28 and 37; cancelled no claim(s); and added no claim(s). Therefore, Claims 1-38 remain pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 16, 20 and 25 remain independent claims.
Applicant’s original Claims 1-38 were originally presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits per MPEP § 819 and MPEP § 821.03.
The present application (i.e., U.S. App. No. 18/139,690) is continuation-in-part (“CIP”) application filed on April 26, 2023, which is after March 16, 2013. Therefore, the present application is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Examiner notes this application (i.e., U.S. App. No. 18/139,690) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0259982 of Neal Harley Landers (hereinafter “Landers ‘982”).
AIA or Pre-AIA Notice: In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the explanation relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
CIP
This application (i.e., U.S. App. No. 18/139,690) was filed as a continuation-in-part (“CIP”) application of U.S. Application No. 15/829,976 filed on December 3, 2017 (“Parent Application”), which was filed as a continuation-in-part (“CIP”) application of U.S. Application No. 14/790,712 filed on July 2, 2015, now U.S. Patent No 9,836,763 (“Grandparent Application”), which was filed as a continuation-in-part (“CIP”) application of U.S. Application No. 13/667,711 filed on November 2, 2012, now U.S. Patent No 9,076,161 (“Great Grandparent Application”). See MPEP § 201.08. According to 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. According to 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 is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP § 609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant is 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).
Examiner notes the “Parent Application” (i.e., U.S. App. No. 15/829,976) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0172093 of Neal Harley Landers (hereinafter “Landers”).
Benefit Claims
No foreign priority has been claimed in the present application (i.e., U.S. App. No. 18/139,690) or any parent application thereof.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. However, Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for Applicant’s pending claims to receive benefit of an earlier filing date. The effective priority date of the claims pending in the present application is April 26, 2023. A later-filed application must be a patent application for an invention that is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of the America Invents Act (AIA ), or pre-AIA first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 296–97 (Fed. Cir. 1995); and Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012). U.S. Application No. 18/139,690 is a CIP of U.S. Application Nos. 15/829,976; 14/790,712 and 13/667,711 claiming benefit to provisional application 61/555,842; however, the disclosure of each of these four earlier-filed applications fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of the AIA for the claims pending in this U.S. Application No. 18/139,690. The disclosure of each of these earlier-filed applications fails to provide § 112(a) support for the language included in independent Claims 1, 16, 20 and 25 of U.S. Application No. 18/139,690, such as the idea of blockchain technology as more specifically recited in Claims 1, 16 and 20, as well as advertisement selection based on a correlation between an observable condition and an identifiable classification of an advertisement for advertising a specific product or service, as recited in Applicant’s Claim 25. Since these four earlier-filed applications fail to disclose such features regarding language recited in Applicant’s independent claims, the effective priority date of the claims in this application (i.e., U.S. App. No. 18/139,690) is April 26, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes that no information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed in this case.
Applicant is notified of 37 CFR 1.51(d): “Applicants are encouraged to file an information disclosure statement in nonprovisional applications.” Likewise, 37 C.F.R. 1.56, states that each inventor named in the application has a duty to disclose information material to patentability.
Applicant is notified of MPEP § 2001.06(b): “prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are ‘material to patentability’ of the subsequent application”.
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes rejections to Claims 25-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a); therefore, the Examiner withdraws the § 112(a) rejections to Claims 25-38. However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a); therefore, the Examiner asserts/maintains § 112(a) rejections to Claims 1-24, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes rejections to Claims 20-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner withdraws the § 112(b) rejections to Claims 20-24. However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner maintains/asserts § 112(b) rejections to Claims 1-15 and 20-24, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains/asserts § 101 rejections to Claims 1-38, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome prior art rejections to Claims 1-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103; therefore, the Examiner asserts/maintains § 103 rejections to Claims 1-38, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of the AIA as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s claims contain subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2163.06 through § 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter. “No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention”, according to 35 U.S.C. 132. Also see MPEP § 2001.
First, Applicant has introduced the following claim limitations in independent Claim 1:
“store the ad…by 1) generating one or more cryptographic hashes for the textual and/or graphical elements and 2) recording the one or more cryptographic hashes on a distributed ledger to enable tamper-evident storage to prevent subsequent unauthorized alteration, wherein the secured advertisement is validated by the distributed ledger before distribution to the one or more media devices”.
Similarly, Applicant has introduced the following newly-added claim limitations to independent Claim 20:
“encrypting the advertisement… by 1) generating cryptographic hashes for the visual elements and 2) recording the cryptographic hashes on a distributed ledger to enable tamper-evident storage to prevent subsequent unauthorized alteration, wherein the encrypted advertisement is validated by the distributed ledger before distribution to one or more remote media devices”.
However, after reviewing Applicant’s disclosure, particularly paragraphs [0081] and [0163]–[0169] of Applicant’s as-filed specification, and reviewing the claim limitations above, new matter appears to have been introduced into Applicant’s disclosure of the invention. Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0081] indicates that “the security elements will prevent unauthorized tampering or hacking of the advertisement strategies by external devices”. In addition, paragraph [0164] of Applicant’s as-filed disclosure indicates that “security/identification module 148 of the advertisement planning device 122 may be configured to securely encrypt advertisement using blockchain technologies to ensure that advertisements are not altered”, “security elements may include blockchain” (as-filed specification ¶ [0165]), and “method 360… includes the step of storing the ad using one or more blockchain technologies to create a secured ad, as indicated in block 364” (as-filed specification ¶ [0166]). However, § 112(a) written description support in Applicant’s specification cannot be found for Claim 1 reciting:
“store the ad…by 1) generating one or more cryptographic hashes for the textual and/or graphical elements and 2) recording the one or more cryptographic hashes on a distributed ledger to enable tamper-evident storage to prevent subsequent unauthorized alteration, wherein the secured advertisement is validated by the distributed ledger before distribution to the one or more media devices” (bolding emphases added by Examiner).
Similarly, § 112(a) written description support in Applicant’s specification cannot be found for independent Claim 20 reciting:
“encrypting the advertisement… by 1) generating cryptographic hashes for the visual elements and 2) recording the cryptographic hashes on a distributed ledger to enable tamper-evident storage to prevent subsequent unauthorized alteration, wherein the encrypted advertisement is validated by the distributed ledger before distribution to one or more remote media devices” (bolding emphases added by Examiner).
Consequently, independent Claims 1 and 20 each introduce new matter and, therefore, Claims 1 and 20 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of the AIA . Appropriate correction(s)/clarification(s) is required.
In addition, Applicant has introduced the following claim limitations to independent Claim 16:
“monitor… by a) receiving cryptographic display confirmation from each media device, and b) validating each display event using a distributed blockchain ledger";
"calculate…based on… verified display events using a fee model stored in association with advertisement metadata” and “store the calculated fee with cryptographic proof of delivery”; and
“using the distributed blockchain ledger to enable auditability and immutability of billing data”.
However, after reviewing Applicant’s disclosure, particularly paragraphs [0081] and [0163]–[0169] of Applicant’s as-filed specification, and reviewing the claim limitations above, new matter appears to have been introduced into Applicant’s disclosure of the invention. Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0081] indicates that “the security elements will prevent unauthorized tampering or hacking of the advertisement strategies by external devices”. In addition, paragraph [0164] of Applicant’s as-filed disclosure indicates that “security/identification module 148 of the advertisement planning device 122 may be configured to securely encrypt advertisement using blockchain technologies to ensure that advertisements are not altered”, “security elements may include blockchain” (as-filed specification ¶ [0165]), and “method 360… includes the step of storing the ad using one or more blockchain technologies to create a secured ad, as indicated in block 364” (as-filed specification ¶ [0166]). However, § 112(a) written description support in Applicant’s specification cannot be found for independent Claim 16 reciting:
“monitor… by a) receiving cryptographic display confirmation from each media device, and b) validating each display event using a distributed blockchain ledger";
"calculate a fee…based on… verified display events using a fee model stored in association with advertisement metadata” and “store the calculated fee with cryptographic proof of delivery”; and
“using the distributed blockchain ledger to enable auditability and immutability of billing data” (bolding emphases added by Examiner to illustrate items not specifically mentioned in Applicant’s disclosure).
Therefore, independent Claims 16 introduces new matter and, therefore, Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of the AIA . Appropriate correction(s)/clarification(s) is required.
Claims 2-15 depend from independent Claim 1, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of the AIA . Similarly, Claims 17-19 directly depend from independent Claim 16, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of Claim 16; therefore, Claims 17-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of the AIA . Similarly, Claims 21-24 depend from Claim 20, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of independent Claim 20; therefore, Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of the AIA . In summary, Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear” (MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Regarding Claim 1, since it is unclear as to what the set of phrases “by 1)… and 2)…” serves to limit in Claim 1, independent Claim 1 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “by 1)… and 2)…”: (-i-) serves to limit the phase “store the ad as a secured advertisement”, (-ii-) serves to limit recited “using one or more blockchain technologies”, or (-iii-) serves to limit both “store” and “using” as recited in Claim 1. Thus, independent Claim 1 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Similarly regarding Claim 20, since it is unclear as to what the set of phrases “by 1)… and 2)…” serves to limit in Claim 20, independent Claim 20 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “by 1)… and 2)…”: (-i-) serves to limit the phase “encrypting the advertisement”, (-ii-) serves to limit recited “using one or more blockchain technologies”, or (-iii-) serves to limit both “encrypting” and “using” as recited in Claim 20. Thus, independent Claim 20 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Claims 2-15 depend from independent Claim 1, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA . Similarly, Claims 21-24 depend from Claim 20, but do not resolve the above issues and directly inherit the deficiencies of independent Claim 20; therefore, Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-38 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-38 appear to satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-38 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite planning/managing one or more advertisements (e.g., a planned advertisement) to be selected/distributed to one or more users (e.g., ticket purchasers, customer, etc.), as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements):
each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of receiving, obtaining, storing, assigning, distributing and displaying;
(only Claim 1) textual and/or graphical elements in electronic form; a request for display;
(only Claims 1, 17 and 23) a remote user device;
(only Claims 1, 16-17 and 20) one or more media devices (e.g., one or more remote media devices) in communication with network;
(only Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 15-16, 19-20) one or more blockchain technologies, such as:
(only Claims 1 and 20) 1) generating one or more cryptographic hashes for the textual and/or graphical elements and 2) recording the one or more cryptographic hashes on a distributed ledger to enable tamper-evident storage to prevent subsequent unauthorized alteration, wherein the secured advertisement is validated by the distributed ledger before distribution to one or more media devices; (Claim 6) a blockchain-type attribute; (Claim 9) smart contracts and blockchain files; (Claims 5 and 9-10) Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs); (Claim 10) a blockchain element; and (Claims 15 and 19) a blockchain smart contract;
(only Claim 2) one or more printing devices configured for printing on tickets or other physical media;
(only Claims 3, 22, 31, 33 and 35) a mobile device, such as a mobile phone;
(only Claim 3) a digital billboard, a closed-circuit television, an end user device, a television, a radio, and a mobile billboard;
(only Claim 4) embedding data;
(only Claim 8) cryptocurrency technologies;
(only Claim 11) enabling communication over a network;
(only Claim 12) network being one or more of a centralized network, a decentralized network, and a blockchain-based network that uses blockchain, and the one or more media devices;
(only Claims 1 and 16) a system comprising: a processing device, and a memory device configured to store a computer program having instructions that, when executed, enable the processing device to perform;
(only Claim 16) “… by a) receiving cryptographic display confirmation from each media device, and b) validating each display event using a distributed blockchain ledger”, “ using a fee model stored in association with advertisement metadata”, “store the calculated fee with cryptographic proof of delivery”, and “using the distributed blockchain ledger to enable auditability and immutability of billing data”;
(only Claims 20 and 25) an advertisement server comprising: a processing device; and memory configured to store computer logic having instructions that enable the processing device to perform;
(only Claim 22) one or more ticket printing devices;
(only Claims 37-38) using an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm; and
(only Claim 38) performing unsupervised training to train the AI algorithm.
However, management of one or more advertisements to be selected/distributed to one or more users, as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; and/or (ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of managing advertisements to be selected/distributed to users. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Although certain claims require determining a number of times that the ad is displayed (e.g., Claims 7 and 16), calculating a fee to be charged (e.g., Claims 7 and 16), etc., these techniques are mathematical concepts in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant's recited use or usage of “an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm” in Claims 37-38, as well as Applicant’s recited “perform unsupervised training” in Claim 38, each appear as a high-level black box with no detail about the AI algorithm itself or any AI learning processes, such as how Applicant's model/algorithm operates on input data to produce an output(s), such as Applicant’s “to train” as recited in Claim 38. In addition, Examiner notes that no detail of any training algorithm appears to be mentioned in Applicant's disclosure and, therefore, no specific way of training the algorithm/model exists within Applicant's recited use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) learning. Consequently, Applicant's mere recitation to "Artificial Intelligence (AI)" is not sufficient to amount to a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., Applicant’s computerized network, in network communication with a server/management system, exhibiting devices and user devices (such as shown in various Figures 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A of Applicant’s drawings) such as for media composition, planning and display of advertising, field of adverting/marketing, etc.}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, obtaining, storing, assigning, distributing and displaying, as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in the Claims 1, 16, 20 and 25 are performed by the generically recited “a processing device”, the claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., Applicant’s computerized network, in network communication with a server/management system, exhibiting devices and user devices (such as shown in various Figures 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A of Applicant’s drawings) such as for media composition, planning and display of advertising, field of adverting/marketing, etc.}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, obtaining, storing, assigning, distributing and displaying, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include (i.e., non-abstract claim elements):
each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of receiving, obtaining, storing, assigning, distributing and displaying;
(only Claim 1) textual and/or graphical elements in electronic form; a request for display;
(only Claims 1, 17 and 23) a remote user device;
(only Claims 1, 16-17 and 20) one or more media devices (e.g., one or more remote media devices) in communication with network;
(only Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 15-16, 19-20) one or more blockchain technologies, such as:
(only Claims 1 and 20) 1) generating one or more cryptographic hashes for the textual and/or graphical elements and 2) recording the one or more cryptographic hashes on a distributed ledger to enable tamper-evident storage to prevent subsequent unauthorized alteration, wherein the secured advertisement is validated by the distributed ledger before distribution to one or more media devices; (Claim 6) a blockchain-type attribute; (Claim 9) smart contracts and blockchain files; (Claims 5 and 9-10) Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs); (Claim 10) a blockchain element; and (Claims 15 and 19) a blockchain smart contract;
(only Claim 2) one or more printing devices configured for printing on tickets or other physical media;
(only Claims 3, 22, 31, 33 and 35) a mobile device, such as a mobile phone;
(only Claim 3) a digital billboard, a closed-circuit television, an end user device, a television, a radio, and a mobile billboard;
(only Claim 4) embedding data;
(only Claim 8) cryptocurrency technologies;
(only Claim 11) enabling communication over a network;
(only Claim 12) network being one or more of a centralized network, a decentralized network, and a blockchain-based network that uses blockchain, and the one or more media devices;
(only Claims 1 and 16) a system comprising: a processing device, and a memory device configured to store a computer program having instructions that, when executed, enable the processing device to perform;
(only Claim 16) “… by a) receiving cryptographic display confirmation from each media device, and b) validating each display event using a distributed blockchain ledger”, “ using a fee model stored in association with advertisement metadata”, “store the calculated fee with cryptographic proof of delivery”, and “using the distributed blockchain ledger to enable auditability and immutability of billing data”;
(only Claims 20 and 25) an advertisement server comprising: a processing device; and memory configured to store computer logic having instructions that enable the processing device to perform;
(only Claim 22) one or more ticket printing devices;
(only Claims 37-38) using an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm; and
(only Claim 38) performing unsupervised training to train the AI algorithm.
However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of receiving, obtaining, storing, assigning, distributing and displaying — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide generic computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of receiving, obtaining, storing, assigning, executing, distributing and displaying, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of receiving and obtaining encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the steps of determining encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition); each of the steps of storing, assigning, encoding and encrypting encompasses a data saving or depositing function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Cyberfone”; and Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data storage}; each of the steps of distributing and displaying encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure mentions that “the components of the advertisement managing system 120 may be implemented in…software…firmware, or any combinations thereof” and “[i]t should be understood that the routines, steps, processes, or operations described…may represent any module or code sequence that can be implemented in software or firmware” at specification paragraphs [0060] and [0188] of Applicant’s disclosure as published in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0259982 of Neal Harley Landers (“Landers ‘982”), which corresponds to this patent application. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the America Invents Act (AIA ) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0172093 of Neal Harley Landers (hereinafter “Landers”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0186350 of MICHAEL C. NAHOUNOU (hereinafter “Nahounou”).
Regarding Claim 1, Landers discloses a system comprising: a processing device, and a memory device configured to store a computer program having instructions that, when executed, enable the processing device to (e.g., Figures 2A–2D and 3-5 of Landers)
receive planned advertisement input from a remote user device associated with an advertiser, the planned advertisement input including textual and/or graphical elements of an ad in electronic form, the planned advertisement input further including a request for the ad to be displayed on one or more media devices (e.g., “enabling a user to create an advertisement to be displayed” —Abstract of Landers; “organize elements of an advertisement by manipulating the image and text elements of the advertisement…in an advertisement window and custom design the way the advertisement may be displayed” —Landers at ¶ [0063]; “an advertisement planning device… to receive input from an advertiser to create an advertisement strategy” —Claim 15 of Landers; and Landers at ¶¶ [0041]–[0042], [0044], [0052], [0055]–[0056], [0060] and [0062]–[0063]);
store the ad as a secured advertisement using one or more technologies to create a secured ad (e.g., “when an advertisement is created, security elements are added” and “Advertisements that are created…may be stored in a database or other memory device” —Landers at ¶¶ [0023] and [0027]; and Landers at ¶¶ [0023], [0039], [0052], [0054] and [0068]–[0069]); and
distribute the secured advertisement to the one or more media devices based on the request (e.g., distribute requested advertisement to media device for display/presentation —Landers at ¶¶ [0041], [0042], [0044], [0052], [0062] and [0072]), but Landers fails to explicitly disclose the one or more technologies including blockchain technologies as well as 1) generating one or more cryptographic hashes for the textual and/or graphical elements and 2) recording the one or more cryptographic hashes on a distributed ledger to enable tamper-evident storage to prevent subsequent unauthorized alteration, wherein the secured advertisement is validated by the distributed ledger before distribution to the one or more media devices. However, Nahounou teaches advertising an advertisement by a user using blockchain framework in a communication network (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0033]); a user using a remote user device (e.g., smartphone 450) to input rules, preferences and specification for displaying the advertisement (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0033] and [0054]); “user 405 can also specify the geographical address, target audience… target platform for the advertisement” (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0055]); as well as utilizing blockchain technologies wherein one or more technologies of the advertising by the user includes blockchain technologies as well as 1) generating one or more cryptographic hashes for the textual and/or graphical elements and 2) recording the one or more cryptographic hashes on a distributed ledger to enable tamper-evident storage to prevent subsequent unauthorized alteration, wherein the secured advertisement is validated by the distributed ledger before distribution to the one or more media devices (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0037], [0039], [0059], [0082]–[0083], [0085]–[0086] and [0090]–[0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the one or more technologies including blockchain technologies as well as 1) generating one or more cryptographic hashes for the textual and/or graphical elements and 2) recording the one or more cryptographic hashes on a distributed ledger to enable tamper-evident storage to prevent subsequent unauthorized alteration, wherein the secured advertisement is validated by the distributed ledger before distribution to the one or more media devices, as taught by Nahounou, into the method/system disclosed by Landers, which is directed toward security of advertisements and other security measures to protect advertisement systems (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0023], [0054] and [0069]–[0070]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 1 above and Landers teaching wherein the one or more media devices include one or more printing devices configured for printing the ad on one or more tickets or other physical media (e.g., Figures 2A–2D and 3A-3B of Landers; and Landers at ¶¶ [0015], [0041] and [0052]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 1 above and Landers teaching wherein the one or more media devices include one or more of a digital billboard, a closed-circuit television, an end user device, a television, a radio, a mobile device, and a mobile billboard (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0003], [0041] and [0044]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 1 above and Landers teaching wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to use the one or more technologies for performing one or more of encrypting, organizing, verifying, and embedding data associated with the ad (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0023], [0054] and [0069]–[0070]) based on the same obviousness rational and reasoning as applied above with respect to Claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 4 above and Landers teaching wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to store digital identifiers associated with the ad (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0023], [0054], [0058] and [0069]–[0070]), but Landers fails to explicitly teach the digital identifiers including Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). However, Nahounou teaches advertising an advertisement by a user using blockchain framework in a communication network (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0033]); a user using a remote user device (e.g., smartphone 450) to input rules, preferences and specification for displaying the advertisement (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0033] and [0054]); “user 405 can also specify the geographical address, target audience… target platform for the advertisement” (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0055]); as well as digital identifiers including Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0082]–[0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the digital identifiers including Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), as taught by Nahounou, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Nahounou, which is directed toward security of advertisements and other security measures (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0023], [0054], [0058] and [0069]–[0070]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 1 above and Landers teaching wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to: categorize multiple ads with respect to subject matter (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0061], [0064], [0067] and [0071]–[0072]); and assign an attribute to each of the multiple ads to identify and match the multiple ads with the one or more media devices (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0061], [0064], [0067] and [0071]–[0072]), but Landers fails to explicitly teach the attribute including a blockchain-type attribute. However, Nahounou teaches advertising an advertisement by a user using blockchain framework in a communication network (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0033]); a user using a remote user device (e.g., smartphone 450) to input rules, preferences and specification for displaying the advertisement (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0033] and [0054]); “user 405 can also specify the geographical address, target audience… target platform for the advertisement” (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0055]); as well as an advertising attribute including a blockchain-type attribute (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0039], [0082]–[0083], [0086] and [0090]–[0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the attribute including a blockchain-type attribute, as taught by Nahounou, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Nahounou, which is directed toward security of advertisements and other security measures (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0023], [0054] and [0069]–[0070]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 1 above and Landers teaching wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to: determine a number of times that the ad is displayed on the one or more media devices (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0034] and [0053]); and based on the number of times that the ad is displayed, calculate a fee to be charged to the advertiser (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0034], [0053] and [0062]; “billing” —Landers at ¶ [0058]), but Landers fails to explicitly teach store the calculated fee with the secured advertisement using the one or more blockchain technologies. However, Nahounou teaches advertising an advertisement by a user using blockchain framework in a communication network (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0033]); a user using a remote user device (e.g., smartphone 450) to input rules, preferences and specification for displaying the advertisement (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0033] and [0054]); “user 405 can also specify the geographical address, target audience… target platform for the advertisement” (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0055]); as well as storing a calculated fee with a secured advertisement using one or more blockchain technologies (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0037], [0039], [0059], [0082]–[0083], [0086] and [0090]–[0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate store the calculated fee with the secured advertisement using the one or more blockchain technologies, as taught by Nahounou, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Nahounou, which is directed toward financial management, tracking and billing as well as calculating how much an advertiser pays for advertisements presented (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0034], [0053] and [0062]; and “billing information” —Landers at ¶ [0058]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 1 above, but Landers fails to explicitly teach further enabling the processing device to receive payment via cryptocurrency technologies when the one or more media devices displays the ad. However, Nahounou teaches advertising an advertisement by a user using blockchain framework in a communication network (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0033]); a user using a remote user device (e.g., smartphone 450) to input rules, preferences and specification for displaying the advertisement (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0033] and [0054]); “user 405 can also specify the geographical address, target audience… target platform for the advertisement” (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0055]); as well as using a processing device to receive payment via cryptocurrency technologies when one or more media devices displays the ad (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0037], [0039], [0056], [0059], [0082]–[0083], [0086] and [0090]–[0091]; and “Payment for advertising can be made using…cryptocurrency” —Nahounou at ¶¶ [0088]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate enabling a processing device to receive payment via cryptocurrency technologies when one or more media devices displays an advertisement, as taught by Nahounou, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Nahounou, which is directed toward financial management, tracking and billing as well as calculating how much an advertiser pays for advertisements presented (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0034], [0053] and [0062]; and “billing information” —Landers at ¶ [0058]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 1 above and Landers teaching wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to create digital identifiers for defining an originator of the ad (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0054], [0058] and [0070]), but Landers fails to explicitly teach the digital identifiers including smart contracts, blockchain files, and/or Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). However, Nahounou teaches advertising an advertisement by a user using blockchain framework in a communication network (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0033]); a user using a remote user device (e.g., smartphone 450) to input rules, preferences and specification for displaying the advertisement (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0033] and [0054]); “user 405 can also specify the geographical address, target audience… target platform for the advertisement” (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0055]); as well as digital identifiers including smart contracts, blockchain files, and/or Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0037], [0039], [0056], [0059], [0082]–[0083], [0086] and [0090]–[0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the digital identifiers including smart contracts, blockchain files, and/or Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), as taught by Nahounou, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Nahounou, which is directed toward security of advertisements and other security measures (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0023], [0054], [0058] and [0069]–[0070]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 1 above and Landers teaching wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to identify ad spaces or locations with a digital identifier (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0014] and [0052]), but Landers fails to explicitly teach the digital identifier including a blockchain element or Non-Fungible Token (NFT) element. However, Nahounou teaches advertising an advertisement by a user using blockchain framework in a communication network (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0033]); a user using a remote user device (e.g., smartphone 450) to input rules, preferences and specification for displaying the advertisement (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0033] and [0054]); “user 405 can also specify the geographical address, target audience… target platform for the advertisement” (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0055]); as well as a digital identifier including a blockchain element or Non-Fungible Token (NFT) element (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0037], [0039], [0056], [0059], [0082]–[0083], [0086] and [0090]–[0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the digital identifier including a blockchain element or Non-Fungible Token (NFT) element, as taught by Nahounou, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Nahounou, which is directed toward security of advertisements and other security measures (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0023], [0054], [0058] and [0069]–[0070]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 1 above and Landers teaching a network interface device configured to enable communication with the remote user device and the one or more media devices over a network (e.g., Figures 2A–2D and 3A-3B of Landers; and Landers at ¶¶ [0015], [0041], [0052] and [0057]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 11 above and Landers teaching wherein the network is one or more of a centralized network, a decentralized network, and a blockchain-based network that uses blockchain to track and verify the ad, the advertiser, and the one or more media devices (e.g., Figures 2A–2D and 3A-3B of Landers; and Landers at ¶¶ [0028]–[0029]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 1 above and Landers teaching wherein the one or more technologies include at least a process of tracking the ad and verifying that the ad is displayed on the one or more media devices (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0032], [0034]–[0035] and [0053]) based on the same obviousness rational and reasoning as applied above with respect to Claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 1 above and Landers teaching wherein the one or more technologies include at least a process of tracking payments owed or paid by the advertiser (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0034], [0053] and [0062]; and “billing” —Landers at ¶ [0058]) based on the same obviousness rational and reasoning as applied above with respect to Claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 1 above, but Landers fails to explicitly teach wherein the computer program is related to a blockchain smart contract. However, Nahounou teaches a computer program for advertising an advertisement by a user using blockchain framework in a communication network (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0033]); a user using a remote user device (e.g., smartphone 450) to input rules, preferences and specification for displaying the advertisement (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0033] and [0054]); “user 405 can also specify the geographical address, target audience… target platform for the advertisement” (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0055]); as well as wherein the computer program is related to a blockchain smart contract (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0037], [0039], [0056], [0059], [0082]–[0083], [0086] and [0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the computer program is related to a blockchain smart contract, as taught by Nahounou, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Nahounou, which is directed toward security of advertisements and other security measures (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0023], [0054], [0058] and [0069]–[0070]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Regarding Claim 16, Landers discloses a system comprising: a processing device, and a memory device configured to store a computer program having instructions that, when executed, enable the processing device to (e.g., Figures 2A–2D and 3-5 of Landers) monitor an advertisement that is distributed through a network to one or more media devices and determine a number of verified display events of the advertisement on the one or more media devices (e.g., “custom design the way the advertisement may be displayed” —Landers at ¶ [0063]; “cost may be based on the quantity of ads” —Landers at ¶ [0062]; “tracks how many of each of the advertisements … submitted to…financial management… calculate how much an advertiser might pay for the advertisements” —Landers at ¶ [0053]; “billing information” —Landers at ¶ [0058]; and Landers at ¶¶ [0034], [0041], [0044], [0052]–[0053] and [0062]); and calculate a fee to be charged to an advertiser based on the number of verified display events using a fee model stored in association with advertisement metadata (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0034], [0053] and [0062]; and “advertiser…billing information” —Landers at ¶ [0058]), but Landers fails to explicitly teach the monitoring being by a) receiving cryptographic display confirmation from each media device, and b) validating each display event using a distributed blockchain ledger; and store the calculated fee with cryptographic proof of delivery using one or more blockchain technologies to reference the calculated fee to the advertisement using the distributed blockchain ledger to enable auditability and immutability of billing data. However, Nahounou teaches advertising an advertisement by a user using blockchain framework in a communication network (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0033]); a user using a remote user device (e.g., smartphone 450) to input rules, preferences and specification for displaying the advertisement (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0033] and [0054]); “user 405 can also specify the geographical address, target audience… target platform for the advertisement” (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0055]); the monitoring being by a) receiving cryptographic display confirmation from each media device, and b) validating each display event using a distributed blockchain ledger (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0037], [0039], [0059], [0082]–[0083], [0085]–[0086] and [0090]–[0091]) as well as storing the calculated fee with cryptographic proof of delivery using one or more blockchain technologies to reference the calculated fee to the advertisement using the distributed blockchain ledger to enable auditability and immutability of billing data (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0037], [0039], [0059], [0082]–[0083], [0085]–[0086] and [0090]–[0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the monitoring being by a) receiving cryptographic display confirmation from each media device, and b) validating each display event using a distributed blockchain ledger; and store the calculated fee with cryptographic proof of delivery using one or more blockchain technologies to reference the calculated fee to the advertisement using the distributed blockchain ledger to enable auditability and immutability of billing data, as taught by Nahounou, into the method/system disclosed by Landers, which is directed toward financial management, tracking and billing as well as calculating how much an advertiser pays for advertisements presented (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0034], [0053] and [0062]; and “billing” —Landers at ¶ [0058]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 16 above and Landers teaching wherein, prior to monitoring the advertisement, the instructions further enable the processing device to:
receive planned advertisement input from a remote user device associated with the advertiser, the planned advertisement input including textual and/or graphical elements of the advertisement in electronic form, the planned advertisement input further including a request for the advertisement to be displayed on a plurality of media devices in communication with the network (e.g., “enabling a user to create an advertisement to be displayed” —Abstract of Landers; “organize elements of an advertisement by manipulating the image and text elements of the advertisement…in an advertisement window and custom design the way the advertisement may be displayed” —Landers at ¶ [0063]; “an advertisement planning device… to receive input from an advertiser to create an advertisement strategy” —Claim 15 of Landers; and Landers at ¶¶ [0041]–[0042], [0044], [0052], [0055]–[0056], [0060] and [0062]–[0063]);
store the advertisement using the one or more technologies to create a secured advertisement (“when an advertisement is created, security elements are added” and “Advertisements that are created…may be stored in a database or other memory device” —Landers at ¶¶ [0023] and [0027]; and Landers at ¶¶ [0023], [0039], [0052], [0054] and [0068]–[0069]); and
distribute the secured advertisement to the one or more media devices based on the request (distribute requested advertisement to media device for display/presentation —Landers at ¶¶ [0041], [0042], [0044], [0052], [0062] and [0072]), but Landers fails to explicitly disclose the one or more technologies including blockchain technologies. However, Nahounou teaches advertising an advertisement by a user using blockchain framework in a communication network (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0033]); a user using a remote user device (e.g., smartphone 450) to input rules, preferences and specification for displaying the advertisement (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0033] and [0054]); “user 405 can also specify the geographical address, target audience… target platform for the advertisement” (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0055]); as well as utilizing blockchain technologies wherein one or more technologies of the advertising by the user includes blockchain technologies (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0039], [0082]–[0083], [0086] and [0090]–[0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the one or more technologies including blockchain technologies, as taught by Nahounou, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Nahounou, which is directed toward security of advertisements and other security measures to protect advertisement systems (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0023], [0054] and [0069]–[0070]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 16 above, but Landers fails to explicitly teach wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to track a variety of billing elements and attribute payments from the advertiser to the billing elements. However, Nahounou teaches advertising an advertisement by a user using blockchain framework in a communication network (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0033]); a user using a remote user device (e.g., smartphone 450) to input rules, preferences and specification for displaying the advertisement (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0033] and [0054]); “user 405 can also specify the geographical address, target audience… target platform for the advertisement” (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0055]); as well as enabling a processing device to track a variety of billing elements and attribute payments from the advertiser to the billing elements. (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0037], [0039], [0059], [0082]–[0083], [0086] and [0090]–[0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the instructions further enable the processing device to track a variety of billing elements and attribute payments from the advertiser to the billing elements, as taught by Nahounou, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Nahounou, which is directed toward financial management, tracking and billing as well as calculating how much an advertiser pays for advertisements presented (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0034], [0053] and [0062]; and “billing” —Landers at ¶ [0058]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 19 recites substantially similar subject matter to that of Claim 15 and, therefore, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis(es) as Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 20, Landers discloses an advertisement server comprising: a processing device; and memory configured to store computer logic having instructions that enable the processing device to perform the steps of (e.g., Figures 2A–2D and 3-5 of Landers)
obtaining advertisement information, the advertisement information including (a) visual elements of an advertisement and (b) time parameters defining a range of times when the advertisement is planned to be displayed (e.g., “enabling a user to create an advertisement to be displayed” —Abstract of Landers; “enable a user to create an advertisement strategy” and “advertisement strategy may include… actual advertisement content (e.g., images and text), run times when the advertisement is to be revealed” —Landers at ¶¶ [0006] and [0052]; “enable the user to enter time periods during which the advertisement is…displayed” —Abstract of Landers; and Landers at ¶¶ [0006], [0058]–[0059] and [0072]),
encrypting the advertisement using one or more technologies (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0023] and [0069]; “security elements …added to the advertisement strategy information” —Landers at ¶ [0054]; and “ensure that the advertisement information is communicated securely…. [and] security elements… prevent…unfavorable intrusion into the system” —Landers at ¶ [0054]), and
distributing the encrypted advertisement to the one or more remote media devices to allow the one or more remote media devices to display the advertisement according to the time parameters (e.g., “ensure that the advertisement information is communicated securely…. [and] security elements… prevent…unfavorable intrusion into the system” —Landers at ¶ [0054]; “enable the user to enter time periods during which the advertisement is…displayed” or “run times when the advertisement is …revealed” —Abstract of Landers and Landers at ¶ [0052]; and Landers at ¶¶ [0041], [0042], [0044], [0052], [0058]–[0059], [0062] and [0072]), but Landers fails to explicitly disclose the one or more technologies including blockchain technologies by 1) generating cryptographic hashes for the visual elements and 2) recording the cryptographic hashes on a distributed ledger to enable tamper-evident storage to prevent subsequent unauthorized alteration, wherein the encrypted advertisement is validated by the distributed ledger before distribution to one or more remote media devices. However, Nahounou teaches advertising an advertisement by a user using blockchain framework in a communication network (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0033]); a user using a remote user device (e.g., smartphone 450) to input rules, preferences and specification for displaying the advertisement (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0033] and [0054]); “user 405 can also specify the geographical address, target audience… target platform for the advertisement” (e.g., Nahounou at ¶ [0055]); as well as utilizing blockchain technologies wherein one or more technologies of the advertising by the user includes blockchain technologies by 1) generating cryptographic hashes for visual elements and 2) recording the cryptographic hashes on a distributed ledger to enable tamper-evident storage to prevent subsequent unauthorized alteration, wherein the encrypted advertisement is validated by the distributed ledger before distribution to one or more remote media devices (e.g., Nahounou at ¶¶ [0039], [0082]–[0083], [0085]–[0086] and [0090]–[0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the one or more technologies including blockchain technologies by 1) generating cryptographic hashes for the visual elements and 2) recording the cryptographic hashes on a distributed ledger to enable tamper-evident storage to prevent subsequent unauthorized alteration, wherein the encrypted advertisement is validated by the distributed ledger before distribution to one or more remote media devices, as taught by Nahounou, into the method/system disclosed by Landers, which is directed toward security of advertisements and other security measures to protect advertisement systems (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0023], [0054] and [0069]–[0070]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 20 above and Landers teaching wherein the advertisement information further includes location parameters defining one or more areas where the advertisement is planned to be displayed (e.g., “enable the user to select… remote locations where the advertisement is to be… displayed” —Abstract of Landers; “advertisement planning device configured to enable a user to create an advertisement strategy. The advertisement strategy includes …predetermined locations where the advertisement is to be run” —Landers at ¶ [0006]; and Landers at ¶¶ [0058], [0060] and [0072]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 20 above and Landers teaching wherein the one or more remote media devices include one or more of ticket printing devices and mobile phones (e.g., Figures 2A–2D and 3A-3B of Landers; and Landers at ¶¶ [0041]–[0042], [0044], [0060] and [0063]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 20 above and Landers teaching wherein the advertisement information is received from a remote user device associated with an advertiser, and wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to assist the remote user device with a process of creating the advertisement (e.g., Figures 2A–2D and 3A-3B of Landers; “enabling a user to create an advertisement to be displayed within an advertisement area on each of one or more media components” —Abstract of Landers; and Landers at ¶¶ [0006] and [0063]–[0064]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Nahounou as applied to Claim 20 above and Landers teaching wherein the advertisement information further includes distribution parameters, wherein the distribution parameters are programmable to enable distribution of the advertisement based on one or more of a type of ticket on which the advertisement is intended to be printed and a type of product related to the advertisement (e.g., “businesses have created advertisements to endorse their products” —Landers at ¶ [0003]; and Landers at ¶¶ [0015], [0041], [0061], [0064], [0067] and [0072]).
Claims 25-28 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the America Invents Act (AIA ) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0172093 (“Landers”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0244750 of Grannan et al. (hereinafter “Grannan”).
Regarding Claim 25, Landers discloses an advertisement server comprising: a processing device; and memory configured to store computer logic having instructions that enable the processing device to (e.g., Figures 2A–2D and 3-5 of Landers)
obtain a plurality of advertisement information sets from one or more remote devices associated with one or more advertisers, the plurality of advertisement information sets including advertisements in electronic form, each advertisement having one or more identifiable classifications for advertising a specific product or service using a classification model (e.g., “enable multiple advertisers to advertise” —Landers at ¶ [0025]; “enable a user to create an advertisement strategy” and “advertisement strategy may include… actual advertisement content (e.g., images and text), run times when the advertisement is to be revealed… ” —Landers at ¶¶ [0006] and [0052]; advertisements to endorse …products” —Landers at ¶ [0003]; and Landers at ¶¶ [0006], [0023], [0025], [0039], [0055], [0058]–[0059], [0064], [0067] and [0072]), and
select one of the advertisements based on one or more observable conditions and the one or more identifiable classifications (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0014], [0025], [0055] and [0061]), but Landers fails to explicitly disclose the selecting being based on a correlation between the one or more observable conditions and the one or more identifiable classifications. However, Grannan teaches target advertising to consumers (e.g., Grannan at ¶ [0054]); a consumer shopping for tickets (e.g., Grannan at ¶ [0094]); and selecting one or more advertisements based on a correlation between one or more observable conditions and one or more identifiable classifications (e.g., Grannan at ¶¶ [0020], [0029], [0038], [0041] and [0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the selecting being based on a correlation between the one or more observable conditions and the one or more identifiable classifications, as taught by Grannan, into the method/system disclosed by Landers, which is directed toward selecting advertisements based on various conditions and identifiable classifications (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0014], [0025], [0055] and [0061]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Grannan as applied to Claim 25 above and Landers teaching wherein selecting one or more of the advertisements includes targeting a customer making a purchase (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0014], [0060]–[0061] and [0066]; “enable multiple advertisers to advertise… and have the advertisements targeted” —Landers at ¶ [0014]; and “user can select… scope or target” —Landers at ¶ [0060]), but Landers fails to explicitly teach the selecting the one or more of the advertisements being based on the correlation. However, Grannan teaches target advertising to consumers (e.g., Grannan at ¶ [0054]); a consumer shopping for tickets (e.g., Grannan at ¶ [0094]); and selecting one or more advertisements based on a correlation between one or more observable conditions and one or more identifiable classifications (e.g., Grannan at ¶¶ [0020], [0029], [0038], [0041] and [0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the selecting the one or more of the advertisements being based on the correlation, as taught by Grannan, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Grannan, which is directed toward selecting advertisements based on various conditions and identifiable classifications (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0014], [0025], [0055] and [0061]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Grannan as applied to Claim 25 above and Landers teaching wherein the one or more observable conditions include one or more of a type of ticket that a customer is purchasing and other items that the customer is purchasing during a single transaction (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0014]–[0015], [0041], [0060]–[0061], [0064], [0066]–[0067] and [0072]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Grannan as applied to Claim 25 above and Landers teaching wherein the one or more observable conditions include one or more of a location of a customer at a certain time and current activities happening near the customer (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0014], [0024], [0052], [0058], [0060] and [0072]).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Grannan as applied to Claim 25 above and Landers teaching wherein the one or more observable conditions includes one or more of current time of the day, current day of the week, current month of the year, current season of the year, whether or not the current day is a school day, and whether or not the current day is a holiday (e.g., “run times when the advertisement is to be revealed” —Landers at ¶ [0052]; “enable the user to enter time periods during which the advertisement is…displayed” —Abstract of Landers; and Landers at ¶¶ [0006], [0058]–[0059] and [0072]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Grannan as applied to Claim 34 above and Landers teaching wherein the one or more observable conditions are obtained by a mobile device associated with a purchaser (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0014], [0025], [0041]–[0042], [0044], [0055], [0060]–[0061] and [0063]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Grannan as applied to Claim 25 above and Landers teaching wherein the one or more observable conditions includes supply and demand parameters (e.g., Landers at ¶ [0062]).
Claims 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the America Invents Act (AIA ) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0172093 (“Landers”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0244750 (“Grannan”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0363829 (hereinafter “Landers ‘829”).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Grannan as applied to Claim 25 above, but Landers fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more observable conditions includes one or more of current temperature, current weather conditions, and weather forecasts. However, Landers ‘829 teaches advertising systems for managing, creating and distributing advertisements as well as advertising based on weather conditions or other conditions (e.g., Landers ‘829 at ¶ [0005]) wherein one or more observable conditions includes one or more of current temperature, current weather conditions, and weather forecasts (e.g., Landers ‘829 at ¶¶ [0119]–[0120]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the one or more observable conditions includes one or more of current temperature, current weather conditions, and weather forecasts, as taught by Landers ‘829, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Grannan, which is directed toward selecting advertisements based on various conditions and identifiable classifications (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0014], [0025], [0055] and [0061]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Grannan and Landers ‘829 as applied to Claim 29 above, but Landers fails to explicitly teach wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to obtain measurable conditions and determine if the measurable conditions are above a certain upper threshold or below a certain lower threshold. However, Landers ‘829 teaches advertising systems for managing, creating and distributing advertisements as well as advertising based on weather conditions, traffic conditions or other conditions (e.g., Landers ‘829 at ¶ [0005]) wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to obtain measurable conditions and determine if the measurable conditions are above a certain upper threshold or below a certain lower threshold (e.g., Landers ‘829 at ¶¶ [0119]–[0120]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to obtain measurable conditions and determine if the measurable conditions are above a certain upper threshold or below a certain lower threshold, as taught by Landers ‘829, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Grannan and Landers ‘829, which is directed toward selecting advertisements based on various conditions and identifiable classifications (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0014], [0025], [0055] and [0061]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Grannan and Landers ‘829 as applied to Claim 29 above and Landers teaching wherein the one or more observable conditions are obtained by a mobile device associated with a purchaser (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0014], [0025], [0041]–[0042], [0044], [0055], [0060]–[0061] and [0063]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Grannan as applied to Claim 25 above, but Landers fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more observable conditions includes one or more of traffic conditions, current events, local events, and upcoming events. However, Landers ‘829 teaches advertising systems for managing, creating and distributing advertisements as well as advertising based on traffic conditions or other conditions (e.g., Landers ‘829 at ¶ [0005]) wherein the one or more observable conditions includes one or more of traffic conditions, current events, local events, and upcoming events (e.g., Landers ‘829 at ¶¶ [0119]–[0120]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the one or more observable conditions includes one or more of traffic conditions, current events, local events, and upcoming events, as taught by Landers ‘829, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Grannan, which is directed toward selecting advertisements based on various conditions and identifiable classifications (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0014], [0025], [0055] and [0061]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 33 recites substantially similar subject matter to that of Claim 31 and, therefore, Claim 33 is rejected on the same basis(es) as Claim 31.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the America Invents Act (AIA ) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0172093 (“Landers”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0244750 (“Grannan”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0364746 of Nicholas Francesco Longano (hereinafter “Longano”).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Grannan as applied to Claim 25 above and Landers teaching wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to use an algorithm to select one or more of the advertisements (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0025], [0049], [0061], [0072] and [0077]), but Landers fails to explicitly teach the algorithm including an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm. However, Longano teaches utilizing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm to select advertisements (e.g., Longano at ¶¶ [0035]–[0036] and [0063]–[0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the algorithm including an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm, as taught by Longano, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Grannan, which is directed toward selecting advertisements for presentation (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0025], [0061] and [0072]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Grannan and Longano as applied to Claim 37 above, but Landers fails to explicitly teach wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to perform unsupervised training to train the AI algorithm. However, Longano teaches wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to perform unsupervised training to train the AI algorithm to select advertisements (e.g., Longano at ¶¶ [0035]–[0036] and [0063]–[0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to perform unsupervised training to train the AI algorithm, as taught by Longano, into the method/system taught by Landers in view of Grannan and Longano, which is directed toward selecting advertisements for presentation (e.g., Landers at ¶¶ [0025], [0061] and [0072]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on December 1, 2025, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes citations above to cited prior art references in an effort to assist Applicant given Applicant’s amendments and arguments in “Amendment”.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 11-12) Applicant asserts that the independent claims, as currently amended, are fully supported under § 112(a) to support the limitations currently recited in Claims 1, 16 and 20.
(Pages 12-15) Applicant asserts that the pending claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(Pages 15-16) Applicant asserts that U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0172093 of Neal Harley Landers (hereinafter “Landers”), which published more than 3 years before the effective filing date (EFD) of Applicant’s claims, cannot be used as prior art to reject Applicant’s pending claims.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Examiner respectfully disagrees with respect to independent Claims 1, 16 and 20. Please see § 112(a) rejections above regarding amended portions of Claims 1, 16 and 20. Applicant's arguments in view of MPEP §§ 2161.01(I.) and 2163(I.)(A) of the written description requirement and its relationship to inadequate/insufficient disclosure are generic/conclusory and non-specific to Examiner’s analysis and review of Applicant's disclosure and, therefore, Applicant's argument(s) that the specification describes “blockchain technologies” constitutes no more than a general allegation that the pending claims support a patentable invention under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of the AIA . See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b). Please see MPEP §§ 2161.01(I.) and 2163(I.)(A) for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to inadequate/insufficient disclosure. In particular with respect to Applicant’s § 112(a) arguments, please note that:
“[G]eneric claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349-50, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 (“[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.”) (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that “only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement”)” (emphases added by Examiner to paragraph from MPEP § 2161.01(I.)).
In view of Applicant’s arguments and above analysis, Examiner is unpersuaded and, therefore, asserts rejections to Claims 1, 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of the AIA , as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Please see § 112(a) rejections above regarding amended portions of the independent Claims 1, 16 and 20.
Please see updated/modified § 101 rejections above regarding Applicant’s pending claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of Applicant’s independent claims. Also see § 112(a) rejections above regarding language that is recited in independent Claims 1, 16 and 20, but unsupported under § 112(a).
Regarding § 103, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0172093 (“Landers”) qualifies as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and cannot be excepted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) because Landers was disclosed in 2019, which is outside the one-year grace period for Applicant’s claimed invention having an effective filing date (EFD) in 2023, which is explained above in this Office action. It does not matter that the applications were commonly owned. See MPEP § 2153.02. Also see In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 296–97 (Fed. Cir. 1995) as well as Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Consequently, Landers is available to be used as prior art in the rejections of Applicant’s claims, as provided above under § 103. Similarly, Landers ‘829 qualifies as prior art for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to Landers ‘093. Finally, see 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b): “The reply …must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action” (emphases added).
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and therefore, are being made of record in this Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0162236 of Miller et al. (hereinafter “Miller”) for various blockchain concepts.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0117124 of Landers et al. (hereinafter “Landers ‘124”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0117100 of Landers (hereinafter “Landers ‘100”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0093419 of Wright et al. (hereinafter “Wright”) for “it will also be apparent to one skilled in the art that other indicia can be printed on a lottery ticket such as advertising, media… coupons, passes to events, etc.” —Wright at ¶ [0411].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0292600 of David Davis (hereinafter “Davis”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0125407 of Kang Hean Lee (hereinafter “Lee”) for “edits the design of the advance ticket in person, and stores the edited ticket. Then, the user is issued the edited ticket through a ticket issuing machine…. movie, theater, and concert tickets in advance over a communication network, such as the Internet….” —Abstract of Lee; and “`ticket layout` means to prescribe how to arrange a region having contents indispensable for the ticket (for example, bar codes and the title of a performance) and contents that the user wants to put in the ticket.” —Lee at ¶ [0043];
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0063274 of Dublin, III et al. (hereinafter “Dublin”) for “4) Select and/or preview advertisements and promotions scheduled for or available to that venue and optionally approve or reject them (such review and or approval/rejection might be either individually or by category, for instance reject all beer advertisements for a venue that does not serve alcohol, or reject ads for a particular beer brand not served at that venue); 5) Provide a dashboard or control panel to manage the rollout and release of various advertisements and promotions for campaigns at or across venues for which the user has been granted control” —Dublin at ¶¶ [0083]–[0084].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0012866 of Celik et al. (hereinafter “Celik et al”) for “An advertiser has the option of selecting the geographic location in which they display featured listings.” —Celik et al at ¶ [0074]; and Figures 8-9 of Celik et al showing a “SELECT ADVERTISING REGIONS FOR YOUR LISTING” with an interactive map displayed.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0012865 of Aytek Celik (hereinafter “Celik”) for an interactive map with “SELECT ADVERTISING REGIONS FOR YOUR LISTING” —Figures 8-11 of Celik; Figures 8-11 of Celik are advertiser interfaces —Celik at ¶¶ [0018]–[0021]; “FIG. 8 illustrates an interface 800 in which an advertiser may choose a region or location for an advertisement. The interface 800 is for selecting a region 802 for the advertisement…. The interface 800 automatically selects a region based upon the address of the business from the location information 406 as shown in FIG. 4. The category 804 shows the geographic location as "near San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, Calif." The advertiser may choose the region for an advertisement to display. The advertiser may select a location various ways, such as by pointing a curser to a location on a map 818 displayed and clicking on it, or an associated text or image.” —Celik at ¶ [0057]; “the advertiser may select a geographic location or region for which the advertiser determines to advertise. The area 908, the state 910, or the region 912 can be selected from the pull-down menus to narrow the geographic location for which the ad will be displayed. The advertiser may select a location from any or all of the area 908, the state 910, or the region 912 and selects the show available inventory button 914. This is just one embodiment of the selection of geographic location. Alternatively, the advertiser may be provided a limited set of advertising region choices from which to choose based on the advertiser's business address. The advertiser may also select a location in other ways such as by pointing a curser to a location on a map displayed on the page 212 and clicking.” —Celik at ¶ [0063].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0221982 of Harkins et al. (hereinafter “Harkins”) for “a lottery number that is printed on the purchaser's receipt…. receipts and… lottery tickets may also be used as advertising space” —Harkins at ¶ [0004]; and for printing an advertisement within an advertisement area on a customer receipt —Figure 7 of Harkins.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0113733 of Kushner et al. (hereinafter “Kushner”) for “Marketing for the lottery … by advertising through any or all of the following: … cellular websites, cellular service providers… printed on event tickets” —Kushner at ¶ [0017].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0140500 of Uday Kurkure (hereinafter “Kurkure”) for “when a ticket is printed at a gas station, a coupon for a nearby merchant or business is printed along with the ticket. The coupon can be suitable depending on the time of day. For example, if the ticket is printed at noon, a coupon for a local restaurant may be printed or if at night, a coupon for a movie ticket” —Kurkure at ¶ [0022]; and “the user has the option of overriding a certain configuration, such as ad layout, at print time. Users may scale down the size of the primary printed content to create space for the targeted advertisements. Users may also select to not have any advertisements printed or display the advertisements on a monitor instead of having them printed. The users may are also given the option to select which coupons and ads he wants printed by viewing them on the screen first.” —Kurkure at ¶ [0025].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0000367 of Jooste et al. (hereinafter “Jooste”) for “Format manager module 121 is responsible for…managing the design, layout and editing of the variable information relating to a ticket order (as well as the relationship of the variable information to pre-printed information). Examples of variable information that is commonly found on a ticket include price information, size information, style information and identification codes relating to the product to which the ticket is to be affixed…. format manager module 121 is responsible for generating a web-based proof which (1) can be interactively reviewed and modified by the client, (2) accurately reflects the particular print characteristics of the target printer for the print job, (3) shows the relationship between the static and variable data, and (4) accurately reproduces images on finished tickets including pre-printed graphics and other stock elements….” —Jooste at ¶ [0050].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0163346 of Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) for “issuing a lotto… and providing the front and the back side of… lotto as an advertising space…. an advertisement is put on the front or the back of a receipt or a lotto; a lottery is purchased through the Internet; and a bill or a receipt on which a real lotto number printed is provided to a user.” —Lee at ¶ [0001].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0096988 of Yanagisawa et al. (hereinafter “Yanagisawa”) for “combines check-out information with the advertising information so as to generate printing data, which is output at a printing device, and printed as a receipt with an ad.” —Abstract of Yanagisawa; “creating advertising information data” —Yanagisawa at ¶ [0115]; and creating advertising, previewing it 1151 and revising 1162 it —Figures 11-13 of Yanagisawa.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0083906 of Gregory J. Speicher (hereinafter “Speicher”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0133465 of Koge et al. (hereinafter “Koge”) for “a communication entry box 10c where communication body (text data) is entered, an image selection button 10d to select the image file, an image file display box 10e to display the name of the image file, and send button 10f to send the entered dispatch request information to servers 3 and 4. In addition,… recipient information entry section 10b there are entry boxes to enter the recipient's name, zip code, address…mail address, age, gender, occupation, interests, etc. When image selection button 10d is clicked, a separate screen that lists the saved image files on the hard disk, etc., of terminal 2 is displayed and the image file name that is selected from said screen is displayed in image file display box 10e.” —Koge at ¶ [0073]; and “FIG. 3 is a schematic view of the preview screen. As shown in the figure, preview screen 11 comprises a front side display 11a that displays the front side of the postcard to be printed, a back side display 11b that displays the back side of the postcard to be printed, a print execution button 11c to transmit the print command to the printed matter dispatching server 3, a content correction button 11d that transmits a correction command to the printed matter dispatching server 3, and a print cancel button 11c that transmits a print cancel command to the printed matter dispatching server 3. Also, in the front side display 11a, in addition to the recipient data (zip code, address, name) and sender data (name, zip code, address), the advertising data A extracted from the advertising database 7 based on recipient data and an automatically generated lottery number (serial number) are displayed in a designated layout. At the same time, in the back side display 11b, in addition to the correspondence or image that was entered in said dispatch request screen 10, advertising data B and C extracted from the advertising database 7 are displayed in the designated layout.” —Koge at ¶ [0074].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0041022 of Minowa et al. (hereinafter “Minowa”) for “ ‘ advertising information’ refers to advertising information for advertising a commodity (or goods for sale) or announcing an event… as well as the information in the form of coupons, lottery tickets, or the like…. "advertising information" includes…slips to be issued by kiosk terminals, tickets to be issued by ticket selling agents,…lottery tickets, or the like.” —Minowa at ¶ [0010].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0217329 of Mark Good (hereinafter “Good”) for “define SWF objects by adding components such as…text and images for graphical advertisements.” —Good at ¶ [0050] and Figures 14-15 of Good; and “SWF GUI 300 may be configured to receive image and text inputs from user 10, convey message and preview outputs to user 10, and provide action options to user 10.” —Good at ¶ [0052]; and “give user 10 an ability to add one or more images to the SWF file and add text to the SWF file, including to SWF file images configured to receive text.” —Good at ¶ [0054].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621