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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received January 1, 2026.
Claims 1, 11, 14, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant has filed a continuation-in-part of application number 15/111,749. In each independent claim Applicant has included material from pars 055-067 of the instant specification (as well as Figs 28-35) which were not present in the parent application. For example, claim 1 has bidding and claims 11 and 19 have changing an advertisement from a first to a second physical configuration, subject matter not present in the original filing. Nor has applicant shown where the express support is, here are limitations that only have support (for each and every element) in the newly added pars 055-067:
Claim 1: an input interface configured to receive bid-related inputs for a first advertisement;
Claim 11: the display component is changed to a second physical configuration that does not display the first advertisement,
Claim 19: wherein the action is changing a physical configuration geometrically in space of preference profile and the second preference profile being sensed by a sensor in an advertisement approach zone.
Therefore there is no effective filing date relating to the parent: the effective filing date is October 9, 2023.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1:
an input interface configured to
a receiving component configured to
a retrieving component configured to
a comparison component configured to
a display component configured to
In claim 11:
a display component configured to
a sensing component configured to
a comparison component configured to In claim 19:
a correlation module configured to
a module configured to
The input interface, correlation, module, display comparison, receiving, retrieving is described in the specification by at least par 054. Sensing component described by at least par 063.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 11-18 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 11 recites that a comparison component is configured to compare retrieved information about the user. Then, claim 11 recites that “as a function of the comparison between the retrieved information and the information about the user.” However, the antecedent basis only has “retrieved information about the user,” which causes two 112(b) scope problems. Applicant has recited “the retrieved information” and “the information about the user” as two different information elements, either of which could refer back to “retrieved information about the user.” So, the antecedent basis is unclear on which (“the information about the user” “retrieved information”) refers back to “retrieved information about the user.” Further, there needs to be two elements to refer back to and therefore, whichever refers back to “retrieved information about the user,” there is another element missing.
Claims 12-18 are rejected for being dependent on claim 11.
Therefore claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 USC 112.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitoun et al., US Pat No 10282757 B1 ("Bitoun") in view of in view of Lanham, US PGPUB 20080030427 ("Lanham").
Per claim 1, Bitoun teaches An advertisement system, comprising: an input interface configured to receive bid-related inputs for a first advertisement in col 3 ln 44-60: “In one embodiment, such a command may include a source code name and one or more source code parameters that may identify one or more ad campaigns that the ad device requests the ad server to activate or to effectively submit in a bid for ad space.”
Bitoun then teaches a receiving component configured to receiving information about an identified user in col 2 ln 21-45: “Activation of an ad campaign may be dynamic in the way that an advertiser may activate certain ad campaigns based on information received in real-time about a user or a user device, such as may be associated with a communication session (e.g., a cookie, browse history, etc.) of the user device accessing the web page, as well as information received about a publisher and/or web page content, as non-limiting examples.”
Bitoun then teaches a retrieving component configured to retrieve information about the identified user, the information about the identified user comprising information from a preexisting first preference profile associated with the identified user in col 5 ln 65 – col 6 ln 9: “Cookie information in the groups 122 may include session identification or other information that an ad exchange device 110 may recognize and may use to retrieve additional information about a user, such as purchase history, browse history, profile information, search terms, etc. Numerous other examples may exist in other embodiments.” 1. Profile is taught. 2. Purchase, browser history, and search terms teach preferences. 3. The additional information received is preexisting because it is historical (prior) information. Therefore this limitation is taught by Bitoun.
Bitoun then teaches a comparison component configured to compare the retrieved information to information about the first advertisement in par 089: “The ad campaign determination module 332 may determine one or more ad campaigns to use in connection with a user. In one embodiment, the determination may be based on a category or group to which a user belongs, e.g., as determined by the user categorization module 330. In one embodiment, an ad campaign may be predetermined for a particular group. Various criteria may be used to determine to which groups an ad campaign may be associated. Such criteria may include, but is not limited to, the likelihood that members of a group will purchase a product or service if presented an ad associated with an ad campaign.”
Bitoun then teaches and a display component configured to selectively display the first advertisement as a function of the comparison in par 089: “For example, ad campaigns having attributes that include a relatively large size and a prominent location on a publisher's web page may be associated with a group that includes members who have purchased a relatively large amount of products or services. As another example, if a user has an account that includes abundant information, such as searches for products, baskets, etc., and an ad campaign for a product in the user's basket has been identified, a relatively high bid price may be submitted for the largest and most prominent ad campaign. Numerous other examples may exist.”
Bitoun does not teach the selectively displaying comprising physically manipulating signage geometrically in space to present or prevent presentation of an advertisement.
Lanham teaches a system for displaying information in real time on a vehicle. See abstract.
Lanham teaches the selectively displaying comprising physically manipulating signage geometrically in space to present or prevent presentation of an advertisement in par 071-072: “"FIGS. 10-12 illustrate a embodiment of the present invention where the video display can be positioned on the back of the vehicle. The video display 82 can be attached to a supporting frame comprising horizontal members 88 and vertical members 89. The horizontal members 88 can be connected to vertical members 89. The vertical members 89 can provide stability for the horizontal members 88 to prevent or reduce any bending or bowing. The vertical members 88 can be connected to the vehicle back 24 by hinges 84. In the location where the horizontal members and the vertical support members intersect, attachment devices 86 can be positioned to provide a mechanism to secure the support bars to the back 24 of the vehicle. On the top 22 of the vehicle, track bars 92 can be positioned at a width spacing that is substantially equal to width between vertical support members 89. The track bars 92 can be attached to the top of the vehicle with attachment devices 90. In the embodiments depicted in FIGS. 10-12, the hinges 84 are oriented horizontally.
When the attachment devices 86 are engaged, the video display is in a position so that the video display can be viewed from behind the vehicle. When the attachment devices 86 are not engaged, the video display 82 can be rotated into a position substantially parallel to the ground, as found in FIG. 11. This position can also be described as substantially perpendicular with the back 24, as found in FIG. 11. As depicted in FIG. 11, the video display 84 can be rotated about 90.degree. around the central horizontal axis of the horizontally oriented hinge 84. In the position illustrated in FIG. 11, the video display faces upward." As it is displayed upward it does not display the first advertisement and is a second physical configuration which teaches manipulating signage geometrically.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of advertisements teaching of Bitoun with the changing the physical configuration teaching of Lanham because Lanham teaches that rapid changes can enhance advertising. See par 008-009. As this would deliver more relevant advertising info one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Bitoun. Therefore one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Bitoun.
Per claim 2, Bitoun and Lanham teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Bitoun further teaches wherein the retrieving component is configured to retrieve feedback generated by the identified user in col 17 ln 38-56: “The user categorization module 330 may also create groups based on information associated with cookies stored on user devices 380. For example, groups may be created based on web pages visited by users utilizing the user devices 380, actions performed by the users (e.g., which buttons or links were selected), products or services purchased during the communication session, or other historical activity information. As an example, communication sessions during which the same web pages were accessed may be categorized in the same group. Groups based on web pages previously accessed may indicate an interest in certain products or services shared by members of the group. As another example, communications sessions that occurred during a particular time period (e.g., between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM) may be assigned to the same group.”
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitoun et al., US Pat No 10282757 B1 ("Bitoun"), in view of Lanham, US PGPUB 20080030427 ("Lanham"), further in view of Naghdy et al., US PGPUB 20150019347 A1 ("Naghdy").
Per claim 3, Bitoun and Lanham teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Bitoun does not teach wherein the receiving component comprises a sensor configured to receive information about a location of the identified user.
Naghdy teaches an advertising auction. See abstract. Naghdy teaches wherein the receiving component comprises a sensor configured to receive information about a location of the identified user in par 025: “In this case, the advertising server 14 may obtain or receive the physical location of the display device, as determined by a GPS system of a display device as part of the mapping application, or as determined in other manners, such as by using an approximate location determined from the IP address of the server through which the communications are taking place from the display device 30, as self-identified by the user, or in any other manner. The advertising routines or the advertisement server 14 may calculate the distance between that display device and one or more of the physical locations of the advertisers within the map boundaries, and assign a weighting factor based on the calculated distance. In many cases, the closer the user is to a local extension of an advertiser, the higher the weighting factor for that advertiser will be.” Here the GPS system is a sensor because it receives information to determine a user location.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisement bidding based on user information teaching of Bidoun with the sensor for location as received information teaching of Naghdy because Naghdy teaches in pars 005-006 that accepting more relevant ads based on user information as opposed to the highest bid increases click through rate and this will increase more revenue to the service provider. As this would generate more revenue totally, one would be motivated to combine Bidoun with Naghdy.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitoun et al., US Pat No 10282757 B1 ("Bitoun"), in view of Lanham, US PGPUB 20080030427 ("Lanham"), further in view of Cetin, US PGPUB 20110225042 A1 ("Cetin").
Per claim 4, Bitoun and Lanham teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Bitoun does not teach wherein the comparison component is further configured to predict a feedback the identified user is likely to generate when exposed to the first advertisement.
Cetin teaches using models to predict click through rate data. See abstract.
Cetin teaches wherein the comparison component is further configured to predict a feedback the identified user is likely to generate when exposed to the first advertisement in par 067: “ MLE modeler 357 is configured to employ a maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) under a covariance matrix floor constraint to predict missing data from observed data. In one embodiment, MLE modeler 357 may make predictions of missing CTR data based on observed CTR data. MLE modeler 357 may then use the select an advertisement based on the predicted and observed CTR data. That is, in one embodiment, MLE modeler 357 may receive a plurality of observed click-through click-through rate data associated with a plurality of related advertisements, and/or query-advertisement combinations. MLE modeler 357 may further receive a related new advertisement for placement, where the new advertisement is determined to be absent of observed click-through rate data.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bid auction based on user information teaching of Bitoun with the predicting feedback teaching of Cetin because Cetin teaches that with a new advertisement there is no historical CTR so methods are needed to provide information to place ads effectively (predict). See par 05. This would enable better ad placement and therefore for this taught motivation one would be motivated to modify Bitoun with Cetin.
Per claim 5, Bitoun, Lanham and Cetin teach the limitations of claim 4, above. Bitoun does not teach wherein the comparison component is configured to quantify the predicted feedback.
Cetin teaches wherein the comparison component is configured to quantify the predicted feedback in par 068: “MLE modeler 357 may then use the plurality of observed click-through rate data associated with the plurality of related advertisements to estimate statistical parameters about the plurality of related advertisements, where the estimation of the statistical parameters is subject to a covariance constraint such that a lower bound for each covariance is a given symmetric, positive-definite matrix. MLE modeler 357 may use the estimated statistical parameters, to predict statistical parameters for the related new advertisement.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bid auction based on user information teaching of Bitoun with the predicting feedback teaching of Cetin because Cetin teaches that with a new advertisement there is no historical CTR so methods are needed to provide information to place ads effectively (predict). See par 05. This would enable better ad placement and therefore for this taught motivation one would be motivated to modify Bitoun with Cetin.
Per claim 6, Bitoun, Lanham, and Cetin teach the limitations of claim 5, above. Bitoun does not teach wherein the comparison component is configured to compare the quantified predicted feedback to a threshold feedback value.
Cetin teaches wherein the comparison component is configured to compare the quantified predicted feedback to a threshold feedback value in par 087: “While the advertisement may be selected based on a variety of criteria, in one embodiment, the advertisement may be selected based, at least in part, on a CTR value for a given query-advertisement combination exceeding a defined threshold, or similar criteria.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bid auction based on user information teaching of Bitoun with the predicting feedback teaching of Cetin because Cetin teaches that with a new advertisement there is no historical CTR so methods are needed to provide information to place ads effectively (predict). See par 05. This would enable better ad placement and therefore for this taught motivation one would be motivated to modify Bitoun with Cetin.
Per claim 7, Bitoun, Lanham and Cetin teach the limitations of claim 6, above. Bitoun does not teach wherein the comparison component is configured to prevent display of the first advertisement to the identified user when the quantified predicted feedback is lower than the threshold feedback value.
Cetin teaches wherein the comparison component is configured to prevent display of the first advertisement to the identified user when the quantified predicted feedback is lower than the threshold feedback value in par 087: “While the advertisement may be selected based on a variety of criteria, in one embodiment, the advertisement may be selected based, at least in part, on a CTR value for a given query-advertisement combination exceeding a defined threshold, or similar criteria. For example, in one embodiment, the query-advertisement combination having a highest CTR value may be selected. Thus, the predicted missing CTR values and the observed CTR values for the various query-advertisement combinations may be evaluated to select an advertisement for the search query.” Because the highest exceeding a threshold is picked, this prevents those being seen that are below a threshold value.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bid auction based on user information teaching of Bitoun with the predicting feedback teaching of Cetin because Cetin teaches that with a new advertisement there is no historical CTR so methods are needed to provide information to place ads effectively (predict). See par 05. This would enable better ad placement and therefore for this taught motivation one would be motivated to modify Bitoun with Cetin.
Per claim 9, Bitoun, Lanham, and Cetin teach the limitations of claim 6, above. Bitoun does not teach wherein the comparison component is configured to cause display of the first advertisement to the identified user when the quantified predicted feedback is equal to or greater than the threshold feedback value.
Cetin teaches wherein the comparison component is configured to cause display of the first advertisement to the identified user when the quantified predicted feedback is equal to or greater than the threshold feedback value in par 087: “While the advertisement may be selected based on a variety of criteria, in one embodiment, the advertisement may be selected based, at least in part, on a CTR value for a given query-advertisement combination exceeding a defined threshold, or similar criteria.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bid auction based on user information teaching of Bitoun with the predicting feedback teaching of Cetin because Cetin teaches that with a new advertisement there is no historical CTR so methods are needed to provide information to place ads effectively (predict). See par 05. This would enable better ad placement and therefore for this taught motivation one would be motivated to modify Bitoun with Cetin.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitoun et al., US Pat No 10282757 B1 ("Bitoun"), in view of Lanham, US PGPUB 20080030427 ("Lanham"), further in view of Cetin, US PGPUB 20110225042 A1 ("Cetin"), further in view of Shimura, US PGPUB 20190164195 A1 ("Shimura").
Per claim 8, Bitoun, Lanham, and Cetin teach the limitations of claim 7, above. Bitoun does not teach wherein the preventing display of the first advertisement comprises physically changing the display from a first physical configuration to a second physical configuration.
Shimura teaches an ad frame management system. See par 1.
Shimura teaches wherein the preventing display of the first advertisement comprises physically changing the display from a first physical configuration to a second physical configuration in par 041-042: “The frame coordinating computer 154 includes a frame increase/decrease determining means 154H and a change instructing means 154C. The frame increase/decrease determining means 154H has a rule stored therein for increasing/decreasing the number of the ad frames, and determines whether to increase/decrease the number of the ad frames. In the present embodiment, a rule is adopted so that the number of ad frames is increased in a case where the bid popularity exceeds a threshold value. However, the rule is not limited thereto. The bid popularity can be determined based on, for example, whether the real-time bidding has been repeated for a predetermined number of times or more. Since the increase/decrease of the number of the ad frames are executed by changing a content frame to an ad frame, or changing an ad frame to a content frame, the total number of content frames and ad frames is not changed.” Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the frames displayed on the screen is a physical change to a display because each frame displays a different ad or article, and the actual number of frames is decreased. Screens are physical and the rearrangement of pixels and articles versus ads are physical changes. See par 010.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ad and bid teaching of Bidoun with the changing of the physical arrangement of the display teaching of Shimura because Shimura teaches in par 010 that “The present invention is directed to solving the above-mentioned problem so as to provide an ad frame management system capable of increasing the number of ad frames, in a display screen of a computer with physical restrictions imposed thereon, while maintaining an overall layout of the screen.” This overcomes previous difficulties of changing frames on a screen that only a developer could do, see par 009. For these reasons, because it would make the screen more flexible to displaying ads, one would be motivated to modify Bidoun with Shimura.
Per claim 10, Bitoun, Lanham, and Cetin teach the limitations of claim 9, above. Bitoun does not teach wherein the causing display of the first advertisement comprises physically changing the display from a first physical configuration to a second physical configuration.
Shimura teaches wherein the causing display of the first advertisement comprises physically changing the display from a first physical configuration to a second physical configuration in par 041-042: “The frame coordinating computer 154 includes a frame increase/decrease determining means 154H and a change instructing means 154C. The frame increase/decrease determining means 154H has a rule stored therein for increasing/decreasing the number of the ad frames, and determines whether to increase/decrease the number of the ad frames. In the present embodiment, a rule is adopted so that the number of ad frames is increased in a case where the bid popularity exceeds a threshold value. However, the rule is not limited thereto. The bid popularity can be determined based on, for example, whether the real-time bidding has been repeated for a predetermined number of times or more. Since the increase/decrease of the number of the ad frames are executed by changing a content frame to an ad frame, or changing an ad frame to a content frame, the total number of content frames and ad frames is not changed.” Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the frames displayed on the screen is a physical change to a display because each frame displays a different ad or article, and the actual number of frames is decreased. Screens are physical and the rearrangement of pixels and articles versus ads are physical changes. See par 010.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ad and bid teaching of Bidoun with the changing of the physical arrangement of the display teaching of Shimura because Shimura teaches in par 010 that “The present invention is directed to solving the above-mentioned problem so as to provide an ad frame management system capable of increasing the number of ad frames, in a display screen of a computer with physical restrictions imposed thereon, while maintaining an overall layout of the screen.” This overcomes previous difficulties of changing frames on a screen that only a developer could do, see par 009. For these reasons, because it would make the screen more flexible to displaying ads, one would be motivated to modify Bidoun with Shimura.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawes et al., US PGPUB 20200380934 ("Dawes") in view of Lanham, US PGPUB 20080030427 ("Lanham").
Per claim 11, Dawes teaches an advertisement system, comprising: a display component configured to selectively display a first advertisement when the display is in a first physical configuration a sensing component configured to identify a user within an advertisement approach zone in par 016: “Sensor devices associated with the advertisement personalization system causing for display the advertisements on cargo container 104 may include video cameras coupled with control circuitry that is configured to process images taken by the video cameras. The control circuitry may be further configured to identify, in the images, people and where their gazes are directed. In some embodiments, the sensor devices determine the areas of the advertisement display that an audience member can and cannot see. Sensor devices, equipped with video cameras, positioned around the truck may allow the system to determine the angles at which an audience member is able to see the cargo container by determining which cameras have the audience member within their line of sight. For example, the sensor devices may determine that the view of the audience within vehicle 106 is partly obscured by vehicle 108. Further in this example, sensor devices that are positioned at the bottom half of the left side of cargo container 104 do not identify an audience in vehicle 106 within images taken at a time at the respective sensor devices, while sensor devices that are positioned at the top half are able to identify the audience in vehicle 106 within its images taken at the same time.” See also par 017.
Dawes then teaches a comparison component configured to compare information retrieved about the identified user to information about the first advertisement wherein, as a function of the comparison between the retrieved information and the information about the user in par 051: “At step 604, the advertisement personalization system determines information about the audience such as the relative motion and demographics. In some embodiments, the location data received in step 602 allows control circuitry to determine the relative motion. For example, when the user device communicates the GPS coordinates of the user device over time to the control circuitry, the control circuitry determines the speed and direction of the user device. Using the speed and direction of the user device and the motion of the advertisement (e.g., from vehicle sensors 312 including a speedometer and GPS system), control circuitry may determine the relative motion of the advertisement to the audience associated with the user device. In some embodiments, the identification data received in step 602 allows control circuitry to determine the demographic information about the audience. For example, the user device communicates information from the audience member's social media profile, which includes their birthdate. Using the age of the audience member, the control circuitry may determine that the advertisement content includes a product that is popular among audience members of that age.” Identified user taught where identification information is taught.
Dawes then teaches wherein the information about the identified user comprises information of a preexisting first preference profile associated with the user in par 051: “In some embodiments, the identification data received in step 602 allows control circuitry to determine the demographic information about the audience. For example, the user device communicates information from the audience member's social media profile, which includes their birthdate. Using the age of the audience member, the control circuitry may determine that the advertisement content includes a product that is popular among audience members of that age.” As the social media profile is accessed it pre-exists. The preferences are taught in par 048: “Information associated with the social media profile may include a schedule or calendar of the audience, audience demographic information, audience interests, promotional offers preferred by the audience, any suitable information about the audience that is associated with social media, or any combination thereof. For example, the advertisement personalization system uses the profile photo of an audience member to determine that the user is interested in the Eiffel Tower and determines that the advertisement content should include travel promotions for airlines traveling to Paris. In some embodiments, social media profile information includes scheduling information (e.g., an audience member has an upcoming dinner with a friend) and allows control circuitry to determine that the advertisement content should include a food item, restaurant location, a price of a food item, travel time necessary to arrive at the restaurant location, or any combination thereof. The advertisement content above may be obtained from cloud content 316 (e.g., the live travel time is dynamically determined at a remote server) or local content 318 (e.g., a restaurant has provided its advertisement to the advertisement personalization system to be stored in local memory). Control circuitry may also determine to display whether the audience member will arrive at the location on time given the travel time needed and the scheduled appointment time of the dinner with the friend. In some embodiments, the social media profile of the user could come from multiple sources. For example, an audience chooses to link one of more social media profiles that could influence the advertising. Additionally, the audience may not actively link any profile and the advertisement personalization system could build a profile of the audience based on their interactions with others on social media.”
Dawes does not teach the display component is changed to a second physical configuration that does not display the first advertisement.
Lanham teaches a system for displaying information in real time on a vehicle. See abstract.
Lanham teaches the display component is changed to a second physical configuration that does not display the first advertisement in par 071-072: “"FIGS. 10-12 illustrate a embodiment of the present invention where the video display can be positioned on the back of the vehicle. The video display 82 can be attached to a supporting frame comprising horizontal members 88 and vertical members 89. The horizontal members 88 can be connected to vertical members 89. The vertical members 89 can provide stability for the horizontal members 88 to prevent or reduce any bending or bowing. The vertical members 88 can be connected to the vehicle back 24 by hinges 84. In the location where the horizontal members and the vertical support members intersect, attachment devices 86 can be positioned to provide a mechanism to secure the support bars to the back 24 of the vehicle. On the top 22 of the vehicle, track bars 92 can be positioned at a width spacing that is substantially equal to width between vertical support members 89. The track bars 92 can be attached to the top of the vehicle with attachment devices 90. In the embodiments depicted in FIGS. 10-12, the hinges 84 are oriented horizontally.
When the attachment devices 86 are engaged, the video display is in a position so that the video display can be viewed from behind the vehicle. When the attachment devices 86 are not engaged, the video display 82 can be rotated into a position substantially parallel to the ground, as found in FIG. 11. This position can also be described as substantially perpendicular with the back 24, as found in FIG. 11. As depicted in FIG. 11, the video display 84 can be rotated about 90.degree. around the central horizontal axis of the horizontally oriented hinge 84. In the position illustrated in FIG. 11, the video display faces upward." As it is displayed upward it does not display the first advertisement and is a second physical configuration.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor and display teaching of Dawes with the changing the physical configuration teaching of Lanham because Lanham teaches that rapid changes can enhance advertising where formerly print advertisements sufficed. See par 008-009. As this would deliver more relevant advertising info one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes which is accomplishing a similar goal. Therefore one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes.
Per claim 12, Dawes and Lanham teach the limitations of claim 11, above. Dawes further teaches wherein the display component is disposed in an advertisement perception zone in par 022: “For example, control circuitry of the advertisement personalization system causing the display of advertisements on cargo container 104, based on videos or images taken from sensor devices coupled to the control circuitry, determines that the audience within vehicle 106 does not have a clear line of sight to the bottom half of the screen on the left side of cargo container 104. In turn, the control circuitry causes the advertisement customized for the audience within vehicle 106 to be displayed only on the upper half of the screen so that viewing range 116 of the audience of vehicle 106 properly contains the advertisement for display. In view 100A from behind the vehicles of the same embodiment, the audience in vehicle 108 is unable to easily view the top half of the advertisement displayed on cargo container 104 due to the small size of vehicle 108.”
Per claim 13, Dawes and Lanham teach the limitations of claim 11, above. Dawes further teaches wherein the sensing component is a sensor physically disposed in the advertisement approach zone in par 027: “FIG. 2A shows illustrative embodiment 200A, in which the advertisement format of advertisement 206a is determined based on information captured from sensors 208a and 208b about environment 202a. In some embodiments, the advertisement formatting includes the brightness level of the display screen on cargo container 204. Brightness indicator 212a reflects a 75% maximum brightness level for the display screen on which advertisement 206a is displayed. Sensor devices 208a and 208b may include video cameras and photodiode arrays, which capture information about the presence of the audience within vehicle 210, their position and viewing angle relative to the rear display screen of cargo container 204, and the amount of sunlight incoming towards the rear display screen.”
Per claim 14, Dawes and Lanham teach the limitations of claim 11, above. Dawes further teaches comprising an advertisement perception zone in which perception of the first advertisement is easier for a user to visually see as compared to the ease with which the first advertisement can be perceived from the advertisement approach zone as a function of improved line of sight between the user and the first advertisement in par 027: “Sensor devices 208a and 208b may include video cameras and photodiode arrays, which capture information about the presence of the audience within vehicle 210, their position and viewing angle relative to the rear display screen of cargo container 204, and the amount of sunlight incoming towards the rear display screen. For example, environment 202a, indicative of sunny weather at 2:50 PM, prevents the audience of vehicle 210 from properly seeing advertisement 206a in the absence of proper advertisement formatting (e.g., an incoming ray of sunlight is reflecting off of the rear display screen and is preventing the audience within vehicle 210 from properly seeing the screen). In response to receiving a large amount of current generated by the photodiode arrays of sensors 208a and 208b, the control circuitry of the advertisement personalization system may determine there is a glare caused by the large amount of incoming sunlight. To remove the interference from the glare, the advertisement personalization system may alter the formatting of the advertisement by raising the brightness level of the display screen. The brightness level to which the display screen is adjusted to may be determined based on the measurements taken by sensor devices 208a and 208b. For example, the advertisement personalization system may contain predetermined brightness settings associated with certain ranges of currents generated by photodiodes within sensor devices.”
Per claim 15, Dawes and Lanham teach the limitations of claim 11, above. Dawes does not teach wherein the display component comprises rotatable components.
Lanham teaches wherein the display component comprises rotatable components in par 071: “FIGS. 10-12 illustrate a embodiment of the present invention where the video display can be positioned on the back of the vehicle. The video display 82 can be attached to a supporting frame comprising horizontal members 88 and vertical members 89. The horizontal members 88 can be connected to vertical members 89. The vertical members 89 can provide stability for the horizontal members 88 to prevent or reduce any bending or bowing. The vertical members 88 can be connected to the vehicle back 24 by hinges 84. In the location where the horizontal members and the vertical support members intersect, attachment devices 86 can be positioned to provide a mechanism to secure the support bars to the back 24 of the vehicle. On the top 22 of the vehicle, track bars 92 can be positioned at a width spacing that is substantially equal to width between vertical support members 89. The track bars 92 can be attached to the top of the vehicle with attachment devices 90. In the embodiments depicted in FIGS. 10-12, the hinges 84 are oriented horizontally.” See items 82, hinges which rotate.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor and display teaching of Dawes with the changing the physical configuration teaching of Lanham because Lanham teaches that rapid changes can enhance advertising where formerly print advertisements sufficed. See par 008-009. As this would deliver more relevant advertising info one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes which is accomplishing a similar goal. Therefore one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes.
Per claim 16, Dawes and Lanham teach the limitations of claim 15, above. Dawes does not teach wherein the rotatable components comprise at least two sides.
Lanham teaches wherein the rotatable components comprise at least two sides in par 075-077: “"Referring to FIG. 13, the video display 102 is positioned on top 22 of the vehicle in an orientation so that the screen is substantially visible from ground level. In some embodiments, a rotating device 108 can be attached to the video display 102. The rotating device 108 can be attached to a frame 110 with attachment devices 104 and 106. The rotating device 108 can rotate the video display 102 clockwise and/or counter-clockwise. In some embodiments, the rotating device 108 can be controlled by a remote control device. In other embodiments, the rotating device 108 can be controlled by a pre-determined interval or program.
In some embodiments, a second support frame positioned on the top of the vehicle or the track bars members on the top of the vehicle may comprise a rotating device. In some embodiments, the second support frame may be positioned on a rotating wheel-like mechanism that provides the rotating motion. The video display and the supporting frame can be reoriented using a hinge or other like device so that the display screen can be visible from the ground level. After the video display is reoriented, the rotating device may rotate the video display so that it can be viewed from a plurality of ground level positions. In some embodiments, the rotating video display can be used when the vehicle is stationary.
In another embodiment, a retractable static advertisement or informational display is affixed to a stationary screen or billboard. The static advertisement or informational display is retracted upon the triggering of a specified stimulus. After detecting the specified stimulus, the sensor triggers a retractor device to retract the static advertisement. When the static display image is in the retracted position, a blank screen is present. The blank screen may then be used as a surface to display a video image of different advertisements or information. The different advertisements or information may be displayed by at least one projector or LCD screen. The at least one projector, which may be positioned either at the front or behind the screen, is triggered by a sensor to project an image on the blank screen."
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor and display teaching of Dawes with the changing the physical configuration teaching of Lanham because Lanham teaches that rapid changes can enhance advertising where formerly print advertisements sufficed. See par 008-009. As this would deliver more relevant advertising info one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes which is accomplishing a similar goal. Therefore one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes.
Per claim 17, Dawes and Lanham teach the limitations of claim 16, above. Dawes does not teach wherein a first side carries the first advertisement and a second side carries a second advertisement.
Lanham teaches wherein a first side carries the first advertisement and a second side carries a second advertisement in par 077: “In another embodiment, a retractable static advertisement or informational display is affixed to a stationary screen or billboard. The static advertisement or informational display is retracted upon the triggering of a specified stimulus. After detecting the specified stimulus, the sensor triggers a retractor device to retract the static advertisement. When the static display image is in the retracted position, a blank screen is present. The blank screen may then be used as a surface to display a video image of different advertisements or information. The different advertisements or information may be displayed by at least one projector or LCD screen. The at least one projector, which may be positioned either at the front or behind the screen, is triggered by a sensor to project an image on the blank screen." The blank screen is one side, the LCD screen another side.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor and display teaching of Dawes with the changing the physical configuration teaching of Lanham because Lanham teaches that rapid changes can enhance advertising where formerly print advertisements sufficed. See par 008-009. As this would deliver more relevant advertising info one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes which is accomplishing a similar goal. Therefore one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes.
Per claim 18, Dawes and Lanham teach the limitations of claim 16, above. Dawes does not teach wherein a first side carries the first advertisement and a second side carries no advertisement.
Lanham teaches wherein a first side carries the first advertisement and a second side carries no advertisement in par 077: “In another embodiment, a retractable static advertisement or informational display is affixed to a stationary screen or billboard. The static advertisement or informational display is retracted upon the triggering of a specified stimulus. After detecting the specified stimulus, the sensor triggers a retractor device to retract the static advertisement. When the static display image is in the retracted position, a blank screen is present. The blank screen may then be used as a surface to display a video image of different advertisements or information. The different advertisements or information may be displayed by at least one projector or LCD screen. The at least one projector, which may be positioned either at the front or behind the screen, is triggered by a sensor to project an image on the blank screen." The blank screen is no advertisement if nothing is projected on it, the LCD screen another side.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor and display teaching of Dawes with the changing the physical configuration teaching of Lanham because Lanham teaches that rapid changes can enhance advertising where formerly print advertisements sufficed. See par 008-009. As this would deliver more relevant advertising info one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes which is accomplishing a similar goal. Therefore one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes.
Per claim 19, Dawes teaches A system, comprising: a memory comprising a first preference profile and a second preference profile a correlation module configured to determine a correlation value between the first preference profile and the second preference profile in par 055: “At step 616, the advertisement personalization system determines whether the audience is at least two people. In some embodiments, the control circuitry determines the audience count through the number of audience devices within a proximity that have completed a networking handshake with the advertisement personalization system. In some embodiments, the control circuitry determines the audience count through perimeter sensors such as video cameras and image processing to identify the number of people surrounding an advertisement. If the audience is one person, the advertisement personalization system proceeds to step 620. If the audience is at least two people, the advertisement personalization system proceeds to step 618. At step 618, the advertisement personalization system averages the confidence scores for each of the products among audience members. For example, an audience comprising two members, where one audience member has a 40% interest level for running footwear and the other has an 80% interest level, results in an averaged confidence score of 60% for running footwear.”
Dawes then teaches and a module configured to take an action as a function of the correlation value in par 056: “At step 620, the advertisement personalization system determines the advertisement associated with the product with the highest confidence score. In some embodiments, the control circuitry will compare multiple confidence scores and determine the product corresponding to the highest confidence score.”
Dawes further teaches wherein the action is taken as a function of a user associated with at least one of the first preference profile and the second preference profile being sensed by a sensor in an advertisement approach zone in par 055: “At step 616, the advertisement personalization system determines whether the audience is at least two people. In some embodiments, the control circuitry determines the audience count through the number of audience devices within a proximity that have completed a networking handshake with the advertisement personalization system. In some embodiments, the control circuitry determines the audience count through perimeter sensors such as video cameras and image processing to identify the number of people surrounding an advertisement. If the audience is one person, the advertisement personalization system proceeds to step 620. If the audience is at least two people, the advertisement personalization system proceeds to step 618. At step 618, the advertisement personalization system averages the confidence scores for each of the products among audience members. For example, an audience comprising two members, where one audience member has a 40% interest level for running footwear and the other has an 80% interest level, results in an averaged confidence score of 60% for running footwear.” Interests from preference profiles is taught in par 041: “Information about the audience may include audience gender, age, occupation, financial choices (e.g., preferred retailers or purchase history), social media, associated contacts, vehicle type, vehicle make, vehicle model, vehicle age, associated user devices, possessions (e.g., clothes the audience is wearing), calendar, user actions (e.g., a sneeze), speed of travel, body temperature, interests, place of residence, data associated with smart devices (e.g., inventory of items in a smart refrigerator), any suitable information about an audience relevant to advertisements, or any combination thereof.” See also par 048, determining interests from social media profiles which teaches preference profiles.
Dawes does not teach wherein the action is changing a physical configuration geometrically in space of signage from a first physical configuration to a second physical configuration.
Lanham teaches wherein the action is changing a physical configuration of signage from a first physical configuration to a second physical configuration in par 077: “In another embodiment, a retractable static advertisement or informational display is affixed to a stationary screen or billboard. The static advertisement or informational display is retracted upon the triggering of a specified stimulus. After detecting the specified stimulus, the sensor triggers a retractor device to retract the static advertisement. When the static display image is in the retracted position, a blank screen is present. The blank screen may then be used as a surface to display a video image of different advertisements or information. The different advertisements or information may be displayed by at least one projector or LCD screen. The at least one projector, which may be positioned either at the front or behind the screen, is triggered by a sensor to project an image on the blank screen.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor and display teaching of Dawes with the changing the physical configuration teaching of Lanham because Lanham teaches that rapid changes can enhance advertising where formerly print advertisements sufficed. See par 008-009. As this would deliver more relevant advertising info one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes which is accomplishing a similar goal. Therefore one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes.
Per claim 20, Dawes and Lanham teach the limitations of claim 19, above. Dawes does not teach wherein the first physical configuration presents a first advertisement and wherein the second physical configuration presents either a second advertisement or no advertisement .
Lanham teaches wherein the first physical configuration presents a first advertisement and wherein the second physical configuration presents either a second advertisement or no advertisement in par 077: “In another embodiment, a retractable static advertisement or informational display is affixed to a stationary screen or billboard. The static advertisement or informational display is retracted upon the triggering of a specified stimulus. After detecting the specified stimulus, the sensor triggers a retractor device to retract the static advertisement. When the static display image is in the retracted position, a blank screen is present. The blank screen may then be used as a surface to display a video image of different advertisements or information. The different advertisements or information may be displayed by at least one projector or LCD screen. The at least one projector, which may be positioned either at the front or behind the screen, is triggered by a sensor to project an image on the blank screen.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor and display teaching of Dawes with the changing the physical configuration teaching of Lanham because Lanham teaches that rapid changes can enhance advertising where formerly print advertisements sufficed. See par 008-009. As this would deliver more relevant advertising info one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes which is accomplishing a similar goal. Therefore one would be motivated to combine Lanham with Dawes.
Therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to remarks
Priority
Applicant does not make a persuasive priority argument nor is it clear what Applicant is trying to argue. The CIP is properly filed and the appropriate date is the date of filing of the CIP (not the parent) because Applicant added in material and limitations to that material in the CIP filing. Applicant does not dispute this, or if Applicant tried to, did not do so persuasively. The inclusion of anything in a claim from the parts added to the original application sets effective filing date to when that material was included.
35 USC 112
The amendments caused issues that, above, are rejected. Claim 14’s rejection was overcome.
35 USC 101
Amendments per the prior analysis overcame the 101 consistent with the prior analysis.
35 USC 102/3
Amendment required the prior art to be further searched and considered, and a subsequent art rejection to be made, above. Applicant’s arguments amount to a general allegation that do not address the specifics of the art rejection and therefore are unpersuasive.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619