DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to pending claims 1-20 filed 3/14/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
Claim(s) 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 8, the recitation of a computer system that is “capable of performing a method..” is indefinite. A reader cannot be sure whether the intention is any computer hardware that, when properly programed, is capable of performing such a method, or whether such a method is in fact encoded into the program instructions. A more direct coupling between the program instructions and the recited method, e.g., “program instructions … causes the system to perform a method…”, would overcome this rejection.
Likewise, in claim 15, the processor is decoupled from the computer program product. The processor is “capable of performing” the recited method and the program instructions are “executable” by such a processor, but there is no indication that the computer program product is positively implemented by the processor to positively perform such a method. Hence, a user is unsure whether the claim is claiming, very broadly, that the claim recites merely the computer program product capable of being read by a processor of sufficient capability or whether the computer program product is coupled to this method performance or causes such a method performance. As above, a more direct coupling between the computer program product and the method being performed would overcome this rejection, e.g., “program instructions … cause the processor to perform am method”.
The dependent claims 9-14, 16-20 are rejected for the above deficiency in the parent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 20210158399 A1).
For claim 1, Yang discloses: a processor-implemented method (fig.1:112, 0050: hardware overview including processor, with fig.6-7 giving overview of the method), the method comprising:
identifying a public messaging display (fig.5 shows exemplary operating environment including public messaging displays 190, such as for display according to fig.6-7);
collecting information about one or more viewers in a public place (fig.5:180; fig.7:704-706, 712-716: user information derived from images and device profile identifiers area collected);
assigning weights to one or more messages based on the collected information (fig.7:718; fig.4, 0072: weights are assigned based on a user profile);
determining an optimal message layout on the public messaging display based on the assigned weights (fig.4, 0072, 0074; display of a particular ad on a screen (i.e., including ad visual effects, ad size, etc.) comprises a layout display); and
presenting the optimal message layout on the public messaging display (ibid).
For claim 3, Yang discloses the method of claim 1. Yang further discloses: wherein the assigned weights correspond to a number of viewers (fig.4 showing the assigned weights assigning to 3 viewers).
For claim 5, Yang discloses the method of claim 1. Yang further discloses: wherein the optimal message layout is determined based on the total sum of weights of messages present in each possible layout (Yang 0072 contemplates taking a total sum of weights for each possible layout corresponding to the respective ads to determine message layout for display).
For claim 6, Yang discloses the method of claim 1. Yang further discloses: wherein the optimal layout includes selecting audio to play over an audio device included in or communicatively coupled with the display (0078).
Claim 8 discloses a system for performing the method of claim 1 and hence is rejected for the same reasons. Furthermore, Yang discloses: a computer system, the computer system comprising:
one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method (fig.1:112-116, 0050-51).
Claim 15 discloses a computer program product for performing the method of claim 1 and hence is rejected for the same reasons. Furthermore, Yang discloses: a computer program product, the computer program product comprising:
one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method (fig.1:112-116, 0050-51).
Claims 10, 12-13, 17, 19-20 discloses systems and computer program products corresponding to the methods 3, 5-6 above and are hence rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20210158399 A1) in view of Shin ("A profile anonymization model for privacy in a personalized location based service environment", published 2008).
For claim 2, Yang discloses the method of claim 1. Yang does not disclose: wherein the collecting further comprises: collecting anonymous viewer information from a scrubbing service provided by a telecommunication services provider.
Shin discloses: wherein the collecting further comprises: collecting anonymous viewer information from a scrubbing service provided by a telecommunication services provider (§4, fig.2 gives overview of a scrubbing service provided by a mobile telecommunications service provider that scrubs or anonymizes user data for provision to content providers).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yang by incorporating the anonymization technique of Shin. Both concern the art of targeted and location-based ads, and the incorporation would have, according to Shin, address safety and privacy concerns while providing location-based services including ads (§I ¶1-2).
Claims 9, 16 discloses systems and computer program products corresponding to the methods 2 above and are hence rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20210158399 A1) in view of Burkhart (US 20200320382 A1).
For claim 4, Yang discloses the method of claim 1. Yang further discloses: wherein the assigned weights are determined based on a process of artificial intelligence (0072: machine learning).
Yang does not disclose: the artificial intelligence using an artificial neural network.
Burkhart discloses: the artificial intelligence using an artificial neural network (0003-4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yang by incorporating the neural network technique of Burkhart. Both concern the art of user recommendations, and the incorporation would have, according to Burkhart, enhance recommendation of digital objects (0003-4).
Claims 11, 18 discloses systems and computer program products corresponding to the methods 4 above and are hence rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20210158399 A1) in view of Liu (US 20150046269 A1).
For claim 7, Yang discloses the method of claim 1. Yang further discloses: wherein determining an optimal message layout further comprises determining an overlay to portray on the public messaging display.
Liu discloses: wherein determining an optimal message layout further comprises determining an overlay to portray on the public messaging display (fig.5-6, 0076-77).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yang by incorporating the billboard overlay technique of Liu. Both concern the art of electronic public displays, and the incorporation would have, according to Liu, allow the display of relevant content alongside ads simultaneously (0076).
Claim(s) 14 discloses systems and computer program products corresponding to the methods 7 above and are hence rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Olivieri (US 20180330403 A1) discloses a digital billboard scheduler.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG LI whose telephone number is (303)297-4263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-12p, 3-11p MT (11-2p, 5-1a ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner is available for interviews Mon-Fri 6-11a, 2-7p MT (8-1p, 4-9p ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Jennifer Welch can be reached on (571)272-7212. 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 and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LIANG LI/
Primary examiner AU 2143
Prosecution Insights