DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prior arts cited in this office action:
Brewington et al. (US 20220349719 A1, hereinafter “Brewington”)
Bijlani et al. (US 20200294085 A1, hereinafter “Bijlani”)
Anand et al. (US 20190250981 A1, hereinafter “Anand”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks: Neither Brewington nor Mori teaches a visibility index score reflecting physical attributes of the physical display.
Examiner’s Response: examiner disagrees with applicant assertion above that the combination of the cited prior arts does not teach or suggest applicant invention as claimed.
Brewington teaches “The server device 14 may use the geographic information for each landmark, including photographs of the landmark, two-dimensional or three-dimensional geographic coordinates for the landmark, a textual description of the landmark, the height of the landmark, the orientation that the landmark faces, the size of the landmark, the appearance of the landmark, the name of the landmark, and viewshed for the landmark for various conditions and/or at various times of day to determine a visibility score or ranking for each landmark from a particular location and orientation of a user.” (Brewington [0050]). As can be seen in the cited paragraph above the visibility score is based on the physical dimension of the landmarks, the orientation, the height, etc. in other words, the score reflects the physical attribute of the landmark. The visibility itself is also a physical attribute of the landmark.
2) Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks: Neither Brewington nor Mori teaches collecting a set of image data samples from multiple surrounding viewpoints and combining them into a single metric characterizing the display.
Examiner’s Response: examiner disagrees with applicant assertion above that the combination of the cited prior arts does not teach or suggest applicant invention as claimed. Brewington teaches the method further includes retrieving, from a database, a plurality of visual landmarks corresponding to physical objects within the geographic area, and selecting a shared visual landmark from the plurality of visual landmarks for directing the first user and the second user to the meeting location within the geographic area, the shared visual landmark being selected based on visibility from both the first location and the second location. Additionally, the method includes providing, to the first user and the second user, directions to the meeting location referencing the shared visual landmark (Brewington [0011]-[0012], [0033]). In other words, a plurality of image data samples of the surrounding area from different viewpoint are collected. The combination of those information is used to generate the visibility score.
3) Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks: applicant argues that the combination of Brewington and Mori does not yield the claimed invention, and the stated motivation to combine fails.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, to use display that has good visibility score given a particular location but also to allow the design and placement of landmark display in location and size that would allow for maximum visibility at plurality of different angles (See Bijlani [0043], for example).
Claims 2-13, 15-16, 18-19 depend at least on either claim 1, 14 or 17 and are therefore not allowable the same reason given above with regard to claim 1, 14 and 17
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewington et al. (US 20220349719 A1, hereinafter “Brewington”) and in view of Bijlani et al. (US 20200294085 A1, hereinafter “Bijlani”).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 17:
Brewington teaches a method/system/computer readable medium (Brewington [0003], [0011]-[0012]) for a digital system managing a plurality of out of home displays (here the preamble is cited as intended use because the claim does not include where and how the display is being managed but only addressed bellow for completeness’ sake; claim 17: the language computer-readable mediums storing instruction is interpreted as not invoking 101 based on the definition given by applicant in paragraph [0120] for example) comprising:
receiving display positional data of a physical display (Brewington Abstract, [0009], [0012], where Brewing ton teaches the interactive landmark localization system may then determine the precise location of the user based on the location of the Burger King® sign and the estimated distance of the user from the Burger King® sign. The interactive landmark localization system may determine the orientation of the user based on the position and/or orientation of the Burger King® sign within the camera view);
the physical display positional data including a geographic location of the physical display (Brewington [0011], [0012], where Brewington teaches The method further includes retrieving, from a database, a plurality of visual landmarks corresponding to physical objects within the geographic area, and selecting a shared visual landmark from the plurality of visual landmarks for directing the first user and the second user to the meeting location within the geographic area, the shared visual landmark being selected based on visibility from both the first location and the second location. Additionally, the method includes providing, to the first user and the second user, directions to the meeting location referencing the shared visual landmark);
collecting, from a geographically mapped image data source, a set of image data samples associated with locations in proximity to the geographic location of the display positional data (Brewington [0009]-[0012], [0032]-[0033], [0050], where Brewington teaches In some implementations, when the identified landmarks are not in the user's field of view, the client device may switch to an augmented reality (AR) mode, present a camera view, and provide the real-world imagery included in the camera view to the interactive landmark localization system. The interactive landmark localization system may then identify landmarks included in the camera view for example, using object detection to determine the precise location and orientation of the user. At least the location Information regarding the first user and the second user is collected with regard to the physical landmark, for example);
determining a visibility index score reflecting physical attributes of the physical display based in part on automated analysis of the image data samples (Brewington [0050], [0053], where Brewington teaches The server device 14 may use the geographic information for each landmark, including photographs of the landmark, two-dimensional or three-dimensional geographic coordinates for the landmark, a textual description of the landmark, the height of the landmark, the orientation that the landmark faces, the size of the landmark, the appearance of the landmark, the name of the landmark, and viewshed for the landmark for various conditions and/or at various times of day to determine a visibility score or ranking for each landmark from a particular location and orientation of a user. The server device 14 may then select the landmarks having the highest visibility scores or rankings for directing the user to a destination or meeting location. For example, the server device 14 may assign a higher visibility score to a landmark having a viewshed that includes the user's current location than a landmark having a viewshed that does not include the user's current location. Furthermore, the server device 14 may assign a higher visibility score to a landmark viewable from the direction that the user is currently facing than a landmark that is not viewable from the direction that the user is currently facing).
Brewington fails to explicitly teach wherein a digital system managing displays.
However, Bijlani teaches Many modifications to the depicted environments may be made based on design and implementation requirements. For example, in at least one embodiment, the billboard aesthetics and safety rating generator 110A, 110B may generate a 3D model and provide simulation and rating information to local authorities so that the local authorities may review the model and simulation in advance and provide their own feedback to a user before the user may finalize designing a billboard (Bijlani [0043]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Brewington and Bijlani as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide feedback regarding the performance of the display such the improvement can be made of the design when necessary next time around which can be the quality of the display, the shape of the display that would make viewing easier, etc.
Regarding claims 2, 15 and 18:
Brewington in view of Bijlani teaches wherein determining the visibility index score for the physical display based in part on the automated analysis of the image data comprises detecting display position and display area in each image and calculating the visibility index score based on a set of images and their associated angles, distance, and display area (Brewington [0009], [0033], [0050], [0053], [0068]; More specifically, the interactive landmark localization system may retrieve the locations, orientations, sizes, etc., of landmarks from a landmark database. The precise location and orientation of the user may be based on the locations, orientations, sizes, etc. of identified landmarks included in the camera view. For example, if a Walgreens® sign in the camera view faces south and the viewpoint of the camera view is directly opposite the Walgreens® sign, the interactive landmark localization system may determine that the user is facing north. In another example, the distance from the user's client device to the landmark may be determined based on the scale of the camera view. If the camera view is zoomed-in at a high level and a Burger King® sign is in the camera view, the interactive landmark localization system may determine that the user is nearby the Burger King® sign. On the other hand, if the camera view is zoomed-out and the Burger King® sign is in the background of the camera view, the interactive landmark localization system may determine that the user is far away from the Burger King® sign. The interactive landmark localization system may then determine the precise location of the user based on the location of the Burger King® sign and the estimated distance of the user from the Burger King® sign. The interactive landmark localization system may determine the orientation of the user based on the position and/or orientation of the Burger King® sign within the camera view).
Regarding claims 3, 16 and 19:
Brewington in view of Bijlani teaches wherein determining the visibility index score for the physical display based in part on the automated analysis of the image data comprises: for each image instance of the collected image data, determining image area of the display in each image instance, determining an instance location visibility score for a location of each image instance, and determining the visibility index score by combining the instance location visibility scores for each image instance (Brewington [0050], [0053], [0068]; wherein the combination teaches More specifically, the interactive landmark localization system may retrieve the locations, orientations, sizes, etc., of landmarks from a landmark database. The precise location and orientation of the user may be based on the locations, orientations, sizes, etc. of identified landmarks included in the camera view. For example, if a Walgreens® sign in the camera view faces south and the viewpoint of the camera view is directly opposite the Walgreens® sign, the interactive landmark localization system may determine that the user is facing north. In another example, the distance from the user's client device to the landmark may be determined based on the scale of the camera view. If the camera view is zoomed-in at a high level and a Burger King® sign is in the camera view, the interactive landmark localization system may determine that the user is nearby the Burger King® sign. On the other hand, if the camera view is zoomed-out and the Burger King® sign is in the background of the camera view, the interactive landmark localization system may determine that the user is far away from the Burger King® sign. The interactive landmark localization system may then determine the precise location of the user based on the location of the Burger King® sign and the estimated distance of the user from the Burger King® sign. The interactive landmark localization system may determine the orientation of the user based on the position and/or orientation of the Burger King® sign within the camera view).
Regarding claim 4:
Brewington in view of Bijlani teaches wherein collecting image data based on location data of the display positional data comprises collecting image data samples in proximity to a location of the display indicated by the display positional data (Brewington [0009], [0050], [0073]-[0075]; wherein the combination teaches the precise location of the user may be a location determined with a greater degree of accuracy than the location determined according to a positioning device, such as a GPS. More specifically, the interactive landmark localization system may retrieve the locations, orientations, sizes, etc., of landmarks from a landmark database. The precise location and orientation of the user may be based on the locations, orientations, sizes, etc. of identified landmarks included in the camera view).
Regarding claim 5:
Brewington in view of Bijlani teaches wherein collecting image data samples is collected from a street-level mapping data set (Brewington [0003]-[0006], [00013] [0050]; In response to receiving an indication from the client device that the one or more visual landmarks are not within the user's field of view, the method includes receiving real-world imagery from a field of view of the client device including visual landmarks, and determining a location and orientation of the user based on the real-world imagery).
Regarding claim 6:
Brewington in view of Bijlani teaches further comprising performing computer vision processing of the image data samples and thereby detecting a presence of the physical display in the image data (Brewington [0003]-[0006], [0036], [0050]; where the combination teaches The stable regions may be extracted from the template landmark using a scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT), speeded up robust features (SURF), fast retina keypoint (FREAK), binary robust invariant scalable keypoints (BRISK), or any other suitable computer vision techniques);
Regarding claim 7:
Brewington in view of Bijlani teaches further comprising collecting at least one supplemental data input associated with the physical display; and wherein determining the visibility index score for the physical display based in part on the automated analysis of the image data comprises determining the visibility index score for the physical display based in part on automated analysis of the image data in combination with at least one supplemental data input (Brewington [0003]-[0006], [0036], [0050]-[0053]; where the combination teaches at least More specifically, the interactive landmark selection module 44 may obtain several template landmarks from a database. The template landmarks may include signs, or other prominent physical objects. The interactive landmark selection module 44 may identify visual features of each of the template landmarks by detecting stable regions within the template landmark that are detectable regardless of blur, motion, distortion, orientation, illumination, scaling, and/or other changes in camera perspective).
Regarding claim 8:
Brewington in view of Bijlani teaches wherein collecting the set of image data sample based on the location data of the display positional data further comprises identifying possible locations in proximity to the display and collecting image data samples associated with at least a subset of identified locations, wherein identifying possible locations comprises modeling viewable range from a location indicated in the display positional data, factoring in display direction and geographic features (Brewington [0003]-[0006], [0009],[0036], [0050]-[0053]; the combination teaches at least If the identified landmarks are not in her field of view, the interactive landmark localization system may send other landmarks to the user’s client device. For example, the interactive landmark localization system may estimate that the user is facing north and may identify landmarks which are to the north of the user’s current location. If the user does not see these landmarks, the interactive landmark localization system may estimate that the user is facing south and may identify landmarks which are to the south of the user’s current location).
Regarding claim 11:
Brewington in view of Bijlani teaches further comprising providing a programmatic interface to visibility index score of the physical display (Brewington [0099]; where the combination teaches for example, at least some of the operations may be performed by a group of computers (as examples of machines including processors), these operations being accessible via a network (e.g., the Internet) and via one or more appropriate interfaces (e.g., application program interfaces (APIs).).
Regarding claim 13:
Brewington in view of Bijlani teaches wherein the physical display is a display type selected from the set of billboards, digital signs, urban panels, and spectaculars (Brewington [0004]-[0005]).
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewington et al. (US 20220349719 A1, hereinafter “Brewington”) and in view of Bijlani et al. (US 20200294085 A1, hereinafter “Bijlani”) and in view of Anand et al. (US 20190250981 A1, hereinafter “Anand”).
Regarding claim 9:
Brewington in view of Bijlani fails to teach further comprising determining an Opportunity To See (OTS) score reflecting a predicted number of viewership opportunities for the physical display and a likelihood to see (LTS) score reflecting a predicted viewership quality for the physical display based in part on the visibility index score (Note: interpreted, for example, as displaying the score for visualization).
Anand teaches FIG. 12 shows a second example of the display image. B1 indicates the region of interest. As indicated by B2 in FIG. 12, the icon, which is the reference image, is not clear in the analysis image. That is, some of the reference pixels do not exist in the analysis image, and if the function f is a unit function, the shape index S takes a value of less than one. In the case of such an unclear foreground, both the visibility index and the shape index take a small value (Anand [0168]-[0169], figs. 7,12).
Therefore, taking the teaching of Brewington, Bijlani and Anand as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the visibility score determined for the display available such that appropriate correction or action can be taking whenever possible.
Regarding claim 10:
Brewington in view of Bijlani and in view of Anand teaches further comprising providing an out of home display marketplace at least partly based on the visibility index scores( Anand [0168]-[0169], figs. 7,12).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination fails to explicitly teach further comprising receiving display content for the physical display and providing display design creative feedback based in part on the visibility index score.
However, Bijlani teaches Many modifications to the depicted environments may be made based on design and implementation requirements. For example, in at least one embodiment, the billboard aesthetics and safety rating generator 110A, 110B may generate a 3D model and provide simulation and rating information to local authorities so that the local authorities may review the model and simulation in advance and provide their own feedback to a user before the user may finalize designing a billboard (Bijlani [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide feedback regarding the performance of the display such the improvement can be made of the design when necessary next time around which can be the quality of the display, the shape of the display that would make viewing easier, etc.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEDNEL CADEAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7843. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEDNEL CADEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights