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 .
Status of the Application
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed 8/6/2025. Examiner notes that Claims 1-7 and 18-20 were elected without traverse by Applicant on 2/3/2025. Claims 8-17 were not elected and therefore these claims have been withdrawn and have not been examined. However, in the response to non-final rejection filed on 8/6/2025, the status indicators in the claim set incorrectly specify that claims 8-17 are “original” or “currently amended.” Any amendments or arguments purporting to revise or re-present claims 8-17 are non-responsive and have not been considered. Claims 1-7 and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, Claim 1recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
accessing the rider's real-time location and planned route
identifying landmarks along the planned route
establishing trigger zones around the identified landmarks using geofencing techniques;
displaying customized advertisement content based on rider's personal profile, travel history and ride preferences;
displaying customized advertisement content when the rider enters a trigger zone;
displaying the advertisement based on landmark information, the advertisement may include but not limited to virtual characters or product simulations.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). That is – the limitations recited above a method of providing advertisements based on a rider’s profile, location, route, and landmarks which is a method of advertising that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore the claim recites an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of:
[accessing the rider's real-time location and planned route] through the taxi application API;
[identifying landmarks along the planned route] using a landmark database;
[the rider has a] rider device; and
[displaying the advertisement] in augmented reality.
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it); generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment; or amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically:
With respect to [accessing the rider's real-time location and planned route] through the taxi application API, Examiner notes that accessing data via a generic API is recited at a high level of generality and that accessing data via an API is insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution data gathering) when claimed in a merely generic manner. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
With respect to the rider device, the device can be merely a generic mobile device such as a smartphone (i.e., “phone or tablet” [spec [0042]) to receive the advertisements and at the level of generality claimed merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
With respect to identifying landmarks using a landmark database and displaying the advertisement in augmented reality, Examiner notes that these limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (identifying data from a generic database and “apply it” by displaying the ads “in augmented reality.”).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception in a particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additionally, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here the limitation [accessing the rider's real-time location and planned route] through the taxi application API was analyzed as extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Here, accessing using location data via an API is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field as evidenced by US Patent Application Publication Number 20220415035 (“Yang”) paragraph [0109] which recites “Google Place API is one well known service that determines the location” and US Patent Application Publication Number 20220221281 (“Millington”) paragraph [0092] which recites “exemplary event data can include Vehicle Movement data from sources as known in the art, for example either from vehicles themselves (e.g. via GPS, API) or tables of location data provided from third party data sources.” Accordingly, a conclusion that these limitations are well- understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 3.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent non-transitory computer readable medium claim 18 is also ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1. The system recited in claim 18 adds nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the components in independent claim 1 (i.e., a computer readable medium and processor) merely provide an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 19-20 are rejected on a similar rational to the claims upon which they depend. Specifically, each of the dependent claims merely further narrows the abstract idea or generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., augmented reality, Wi-Fi, and cellular data).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the taxi application API” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “displaying customized advertising content” in lines 10-11. It is unclear if the customized advertising content in line 10 refers to the same customized advertising content in line 8 or different advertising content. For purposes of applying prior art, Examiner will interpret the customized advertising content in line 10 as referring to any customized advertising content displayed when a rider enters a trigger zone regardless of whether the content is based on the rider’s personal profile, travel history, and ride preferences. Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the rider’s device” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the advertisement” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the augmented reality advertisement experience” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the complexity and efforts” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the rider interaction” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the augmented reality advertisement content” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the rider’s” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the taxi application API” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “displaying customized advertising content” in line 9. It is unclear if the customized advertising content in line 9 refers to the same customized advertising content in line 7 or different advertising content. For purposes of applying prior art, Examiner will interpret the customized advertising content in line 9 as referring to any customized advertising content displayed when a rider enters a trigger zone regardless of whether the content is based on the rider’s personal profile, travel history, and ride preferences.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the advertisement” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the complexity and efforts” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the rider’s interaction” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the augmented reality advertisement content” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20230306467 (“Andersen”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20220253902 (“Fowler”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20180108079 (“Traub”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20170098332 (“Knight”).
Claims 1 and 18
As per claims 1 and 18, a computer implemented method of displaying interactive augmented reality advertisements in a taxi ride and non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions comprising the steps of:
accessing a rider's real-time location and planned route ([0042] “data indicative of a device’s position (e.g., location, etc.) can be stored, communicated to, and/or otherwise obtained by the operations computing system, the advertisement server.” And, [0023] “the one or more locations can be “waypoints” that correspond to points of interest along or near the path of the vehicle service instance.” And, [0075] “location data associated with the vehicle (e.g., GPS data from the operator’s user device).” And, [0063] “receive location data and time data.” And, [0018] “The vehicle service instance can indicate one or more locations associated with the requested vehicle service. This can include, for example, a pick-up location, destination location, and/or intermediate location(s).” And, [0086] “determine one or more relevant locations (e.g., restaurants) that the user may view while en route from the pick-up location and the destination location.” And, [0073] “the user’s course of navigation.” And, [0099] “obtain other types of data such as, for example, location data, data associated with a user.”);
identifying landmarks along the planned route using a landmark database ([0086] “determine one or more relevant locations (e.g., restaurants) that the user may view while en route from the pick-up location and the destination location.” And, [0073] “the user’s course of navigation.” And, [0023] “the one or more locations can be “waypoints” that correspond to points of interest along or near the path of the vehicle service instance.” And, [0063] “data structure . . . that stores historic information about locations.” Examiner interpret relevant locations such restaurants along a vehicle path or course of navigation as landmarks along the planned route.);
establishing trigger zones around the identified landmarks using geofencing techniques ([0057] “The advertisement targeting service can represent the points of interest as a geofence, ad target area, etc. The advertisement targeting service (e.g., using the advertisement targeting, etc.) can decide whether to show a specific advertisement based on the geofence.” And, [0067] “generate a request for advertisement content item(s) based on the data associated with the user . . . data associated with an area in which the vehicle may travel.” Examiner interprets a target area or geofence as a trigger zone around the identified landmarks (e.g., points of interest such as restaurants).);
displaying customized advertisement content based on the rider's personal profile, travel history and ride preferences [0037] “access data to determine that this can be a restaurant from which the user has previously ordered.” And, [0067] “analyze the historical vehicle service usage data of the user to determine that the user has previous ordered dinner from a particular restaurant. The computing system can generate and provide a request for advertisement content item(s) for the restaurant.” And, [0053] “The historical vehicle service usage data can include, for example, data indicative of the past locations associated with past vehicle service request(s)/instance(s) of the user . . . (e.g., past pick-up locations, past drop-off locations, past entities from which the user has ordered items, etc.” For example, [0067] teaches “analyze the historical vehicle service usage data of the user to determine that the user has previous ordered dinner from a particular restaurant. The computing system can generate and provide a request for advertisement content item(s) for the restaurant.” And, [0082] “the historical vehicle service usage data can include preferences and/or characteristics associated with past vehicle service request(s)/instance(s). This can include, for example, types of items (e.g., food, etc.) ordered for delivery, types of locations visited (e.g., restaurant, entertainment, work, home, etc.), and/or other information.” And, [0089] “user preferences . . . may be communicated to the advertisement engine. The advertisement engine can be configured to determine the first advertisement and/or the second advertisement based on the data associated with the vehicle service instance.);
displaying customized advertisement content when the rider's device enters a trigger zone; ([0057] “The advertisement targeting service can represent the points of interest as a geofence, ad target area, etc. The advertisement targeting service (e.g., using the advertisement targeting, etc.) can decide whether to show a specific advertisement based on the geofence.” And, [0025] “second advertisement content items can be displayed when the vehicle is within an ad target range.” And, [0067] “generate a request for advertisement content item(s) based on the data associated with the user . . . data associated with an area in which the vehicle may travel.” Examiner interprets a target area or geofence as the trigger zone.).
displaying the advertisement based on landmark information ([0057] “The advertisement targeting service (e.g., using the advertisement targeting, etc.) can decide whether to show a specific advertisement based on the geofence.” And, [0025] “second advertisement content items can be displayed when the vehicle is within an ad target range.” And, [0037] “The second advertisement content item can include, for example, an interactive coupon for a food item from the restaurant.” And, [0071] “since the user is travelling home from work at the end of the day and the time indicates that a typical dinner time is approaching, advertisement content item(s) for a restaurant and a delivery service/coupon for that restaurant would be valuable for the user. Accordingly, such advertisement content item(s) can be selected based on the user’s intention and communicated to . . . the user device of the user.” And, [0072] “determine, such as from data indicating that the user is heading to Good Grill, that the user may be interested in advertisements for other restaurants or venues in the area (e.g., Superior Salads, Music Hall). The computing system 230 (e.g., via communication with an advertisement engine) can determine a first advertisement content item, advertising a suggested location . . . for the display device.” Examiner notes that Applicant has included the exemplary claim language “may include” which does not limit the scope of the claimed invention. Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require that the advertisement include virtual characters or product simulations.).
Andersen teaches accessing a rider’s real time location and planned route but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Fowler:
accessing the rider's real-time location and planned route through the taxi application API ([0186] “the API can provide data to the system that identifies the planned route of the vehicle and content relevant to that particular location may be provided to the user along that route, which may be attractive to the user. Data from the views, page views, time spent on a page, advertisements viewed, or digital offers downloaded by the user can provide further data regarding the habits or interests of the user and can be further utilized by the system to generate unique and individualized content to the user.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Andersen to include accessing the rider's real-time location and planned route through the taxi application API as taught by Fowler in order to “generate unique and individualized content to the user” that is “relevant to that particular location . . . along that route” which is “attractive to the user” (Fowler [0186]).
Andersen teaches displaying an advertisement based on landmark information but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Traub:
displaying the advertisement in augmented reality based on landmark information ([0029] “With the use of advertisements embedded into an AR overlay and shown on AR-enabled devices to users located in a proximity of a location associated with the advertisements, the owner can advertise to a plurality of users at the same time based on their location. Thus, the advertisements shown via AR-enabled devices may specifically target users located in a proximity of a business associated with the advertisements.” And, [0059] “user may be classified based on the personal profile. The customization of the AR overlay may be performed based on the classification of the second user. Specifically, the AI module may be used to categorize offers for users according to personal profiles of the users.” Examiner interprets the business in proximity to the user as a landmark).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Andersen and Fowler to include displaying the advertisement in augmented reality based on landmark information as taught by Traub because “with the use of advertisements embedded into an AR overlay and shown on AR-enabled devices to users located in a proximity of a location associated with the advertisements, the owner can advertise to a plurality of users at the same time based on their location” so that “the advertisements shown via AR-enabled devices may specifically target users located in a proximity of a business associated with the advertisements” (Traub [0029]).
Andersen teaches displaying the advertisement in augmented reality but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Knight:
[the advertisement] comprises at least one of virtual characters or product simulations ([0078] “an augmented reality system for use as a guide at a visitor attraction, in which a virtual image of a figure is displayed within the real world camera view to provide information, via an associated audio file, about the attraction.” And, [0083] “example the animated figure is a Roman soldier, whose commentary and actions are relevant to the attraction being viewed through the camera display.” Examiner interprets the guide (e.g., Roman soldier) displayed in the augmented reality system as a virtual character).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Andersen, Fowler, and Traub to include [the advertisement] comprises at least one of virtual characters or product simulations as taught by Knight in order to “to enhance a user experience” (Knight [0102]).
Claims 5 and 19
As per claims 5 and 19, Andersen further teaches:
a rider’s mobile device running an application communicates with the taxi’s display system through a wireless network such as Wi-Fi or Cellular data ([0051] “the request . . . can be communicated to the operator via the software application running on the user device associated with the operator . . . The request . . . can be communicated to the operator via the software application running on a vehicle device.” And, [0061] “The application can additionally include an advertisement space configured to display advertisements to the user while the application is open . . .The communications system of the vehicle device(s) of the vehicle can be configured to allow the vehicle device(s) to communicate with other computing systems (e.g., operations computing system, etc.) and devices (e.g., user device associated with the user . . . Communication can occur over one or more networks (e.g., via one or more wireless signal connections, etc.) . . . and/or wireless communication mechanisms (e.g., cellular, wireless.”).
Andersen teaches that the rider’s mobile device running the application communicates with the taxi’s display system but does not explicitly teach that the application and display are augmented reality systems as taught by Traub ([0029] “With the use of advertisements embedded into an AR overlay and shown on AR-enabled devices to users located in a proximity of a location associated with the advertisements, the owner can advertise to a plurality of users at the same time based on their location. Thus, the advertisements shown via AR-enabled devices may specifically target users located in a proximity of a business associated with the advertisements.” And, [0059] “user may be classified based on the personal profile. The customization of the AR overlay may be performed based on the classification of the second user. Specifically, the AI module may be used to categorize offers for users according to personal profiles of the users.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Andersen, Fowler, Traub, and Knight to include the application and display are augmented reality systems as taught by Traub because “with the use of advertisements embedded into an AR overlay and shown on AR-enabled devices to users located in a proximity of a location associated with the advertisements, the owner can advertise to a plurality of users at the same time based on their location” so that “the advertisements shown via AR-enabled devices may specifically target users located in a proximity of a business associated with the advertisements” (Traub [0029]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20230306467 (“Andersen”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20220253902 (“Fowler”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20180108079 (“Traub”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20170098332 (“Knight”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20140012677 (“Wagner”).
Claim 2
As per claim 2, Andersen does not explicitly teach but Wagner teaches:
notifying the rider's device about the customized advertisement content using a subtle notification or vibration signal ([0060] “the end user receiving a confirmation indicator indicating that advertising-based content was received. The confirmation indicator can include a vibration, an aural tone, or any other audio, visual, or mechanical cue to indicate that advertising-based content is available to the end user.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Andersen, Fowler, Traub, and Knight to include notifying the rider about the available advertisement content using a subtle notification or vibration signal on the rider's device as taught by Wagner in order to provide a “newer and better ways to reach [a] target audience[], and more effectively monitor their behavior” (Wagner [0008]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20230306467 (“Andersen”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20220253902 (“Fowler”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20180108079 (“Traub”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20170098332 (“Knight”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20210272394 (“Cella”).
Claim 3
As per claim 3, Andersen does not explicitly teach but Cella teaches:
monitoring rider interaction metrics including at least one of: viewing the advertisement, interacting with menus, or participating in augmented reality-based games ([0371] “monitoring vehicle rider interaction with the advertisement presented in the user interface of the vehicle.” And, [0481] “metrics of rider satisfaction, emotional state, yield metrics (e.g., for sponsored search results, banner ads, and the like).” And, [0205] “the method includes receiving, through the game-based interface, a user response to the presented game activity.” Examiner notes that Applicant has included the exemplary claim language “such as” which does not limit the scope of the claimed invention. Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require that the monitored rider interaction metrics comprise viewing an advertisement, clicking on user menus, or participating in virtual games.).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Andersen, Fowler, Traub, and Knight to include monitoring rider interaction metrics such as viewing the advertisement, clicking on user menus, or participating in virtual games as taught by Cella in order “improve the rider's emotional state” (Cella [0327]) resulting in increased user satisfaction with the taxi ride.
Claim 4
As per claim 4, Andersen does not explicitly teach but Traub teaches:
the augmented reality advertisement experience ([0029] “With the use of advertisements embedded into an AR overlay and shown on AR-enabled devices to users located in a proximity of a location associated with the advertisements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Andersen, Fowler, Traub, and Knight to include the augmented reality advertisement experience as taught by Traub because “with the use of advertisements embedded into an AR overlay and shown on AR-enabled devices to users located in a proximity of a location associated with the advertisements, the owner can advertise to a plurality of users at the same time based on their location” so that “the advertisements shown via AR-enabled devices may specifically target users located in a proximity of a business associated with the advertisements” (Traub [0029]).
Andersen does not explicitly teach but Cella teaches:
collecting rider feedback on the experience through ratings, suggestions, and text or voice messages ([0305] “a series of questions to help obtain feedback from a user about the user's emotional state, such as asking the rider about whether the rider is experiencing stress, what the source of the stress may be (e.g., traffic conditions, potential for late arrival, behavior of other drivers, or other sources unrelated to the nature of the ride), what might mitigate the stress (route options, communication options (such as offering to send a note that arrival may be delayed), entertainment options, ride configuration options, and the like), and the like. Driver responses may be fed as inputs to the expert system.” And, [0279] “the feedback includes ratings of the outcome.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Andersen, Fowler, Traub, and Knight to include collecting rider feedback on the advertisement experience through ratings, suggestions, and text or voice messages as taught by Cella in order “improve the rider's emotional state” (Cella [0327]) resulting in increased user satisfaction with the taxi ride.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20230306467 (“Andersen”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20220253902 (“Fowler”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20180108079 (“Traub”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20170098332 (“Knight”) as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20210312672 (“Luo”).
Claims 6 and 20
As per claims 6 and 20, Andersen does not explicitly teach but Luo teaches:
awarding reward points based the complexity and extent of the rider's interaction with the augmented reality advertisement content ([0148] “each score value can be a different value to indicate a relative level of importance or significance (e.g., greater score value for more significant activity and lower score value for less significant activity) . . . product vendors or manufacturers or creators of various augmented reality experiences (e.g., respective augment reality content generators) can award points to incentivize/motivate the user to interact with content . . . and thereby increase their level of expertise or experience . . . each score value can be a different value to indicate a relative level of importance or significance (e.g., greater score value for more significant activity and lower score value for less significant activity).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Andersen, Fowler, Traub, and Knight to include awarding reward points based on the complexity and efforts of the rider interaction with the AR advertisement content as taught by Luo in order to “incentivize/motivate the user to interact with content or purchase a particular product and thereby increase their level of expertise or experience” (Luo [0148]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20230306467 (“Andersen”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20220253902 (“Fowler”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20180108079 (“Traub”) as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20070282683 (“Alkassmi”).
Claim 7
As per claim 7, Andersen does not explicitly teach but Alkassmi teaches:
allowing accumulated points to be redeemed for including discounts on taxi fares, nearby attractions, or other location-based services ([0029] “the discount information is also determined using information of the accumulated points . . .[t]he discount information can be adjusted according to accumulated points, changes or fluctuations in accumulated points, and/or goods and/or services for which points can be redeemed.” And [0029] “offered opportunities to earn more points through other activities like participating in online surveys, viewing specific advertisements, and playing branded interactive games to name a few.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Andersen, Fowler, Traub, and Knight to include allowing accumulated points to be redeemed for benefits such as discounts on taxi fares, nearby attractions, or other services as taught by Alkassmi in order to “allow[] companies to develop, over an extended period of time, focused relationships with the individual consumers based on brand awareness, ancillary information, and a variety of offers including but not limited to discounts” (Alkassmi [0016]).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Applicant’s claim amendments obviate the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections with respect to the use of use indefinite exemplary claim language and some rejections for lack of antecedent basis. However, Examiner notes that many of the rejections for lack of antecedent basis have not been addressed and Examiner has maintained these rejections.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments, see pages 3-5, filed 8/6/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims
1-7 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that “the Examiner identifies the claim as falling within "certain methods of organizing human activity" (e.g., marketing/advertising). However, this characterization overlooks the fact that the claimed method involves real-time geofencing, location-triggered AR content delivery, and device-specific context-based interaction” (remarks page 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that providing advertisements based on a rider’s profile, location, route, and landmarks is a method of advertising that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. The use of augmented reality to deliver located based advertising is an additional element analyzed under Step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B
Second, Applicant argues that “[t]he method solves technological challenges in delivering low-latency, immersive AR advertising during moving transit scenarios-not merely a business method” (remarks page 4). Examiner respectfully disagree and replies that nothing in Applicant’s claims discloses a technological improvement that addresses latency challenges. Further, the use of AR is claimed at a very high level of generality and is at most at the “apply it” level. Simply specifying that an advertisement is displayed in AR does not amount to an improvement that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Third, Applicant argues that “[t]he invention solves the problem of ad latency and poor contextual relevance in transit, by preloading content and using location-triggered immersive ad overlays (refer para [0035], [0038]). It does so with a specific technical configuration, including: Geofence database; Real-time GPS monitoring; Feedback and reward loop optimization (refer para [0039]-[0041])” (remarks page 4). Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as noted above, nothing in Applicant’s claims discloses a technological improvement that addresses ad latency. Second, Applicant does not claim a geofence database, GPS monitoring, or reward loop optimization and therefore these arguments are moot. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant that the Examiner cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 8/6/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims
1-7 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Andersen, Fowler, Traub, and Knight under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Additionally, Applicant points to various alleged deficiencies in the cited art. Specifically, Applicant argues that Anderson does not capture the interactive AR advertisement functionality, Fowler does not teach a reward point system incentivizing rider engagement, Traub does not disclose integration with a moving taxi’s GPS system or dynamic, personalized interaction and reward mechanisms, and Wagner does not disclose the full augmented reality advertising system integrating with geofencing triggers and interactive rewards.
Examiner respectfully does not find these arguments persuasive. First, Examiner notes that the independent claims do not recite a “reward point system incentivizing rider engagement” and Anderson
Fowler, Traub, and Wagner are not relied upon to support such features in the independent claims. Dependent claim 7 does recite allowing accumulated points to be redeemed for benefits, but Alkassmi has been relied upon to teach this feature. Second, Anderson is not recited as disclosing interactive AR advertisement functionality. Rather, this feature is taught by Traub as explained in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above. Third, Wagner, not Traub, is replied upon disclosing a vehicle routing API. Finally, Wagner is recited only with respect to dependent claim 2 as disclosing notifying the rider's device about the customized advertisement content using a subtle notification or vibration signal. Wagner is not relied upon to discloses a full augmented reality advertising system integrating with geofencing triggers and interactive rewards.
Additionally, Applicant argues that “the Examiner has not provided sufficient motivation or a reasonable expectation of success to combine these disparate references to arrive at the claimed invention. The unique integration of dynamic geofencing, personalized augmented reality advertisements, and reward-based user interaction within a moving taxi environment constitutes a technological advancement beyond what is taught or suggested by the prior art” (remarks page 6). Examiner notes that the independent claims do not recite reward-based user interaction. Regardless, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the provided motivations are insufficient and refers Applicant to the motivations to combine the various references recited in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20150032366 (“Man”) discloses personalizing information based on a route that is determined for a particular user
US Patent Application Publication Number 20130278631 (“Border”) discloses users interacting with advertising from AR-based signs and billboards during travel and an advertisement tracking API to monitor advertisement selections
US Patent Application Publication Number 20170330377 (“Akselrod”) disclosing a user in a moving car wearing an augmented reality device and observing a virtual advertisement provided by emitters on a bus moving past the user
US Patent Publication Number 10728236 (“Potes”) discloses advertisement objects placed in public transportation channels (e.g., subways, busses, and taxis) that provide video advertisements to AR device users located within proximity of an object
US Patent Application Publication Number 20090054123 (“Mityagin”) discloses awarding points based on the complexity of the level being played in a game or a number of images reviewed by the user
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 ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622