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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 4/16/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-10, 12-15 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising activities/behaviors, business relations, sales activities, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106. The relevant claimed limitations include: display digital content within a preset loop / receive a notification of an event from at least one of the one or more digital content sources , the notification comprising event information data / receiving or obtaining, a notification of a first event from at least one of the one or more content sources, the notification comprising event information data associated with the first event / analyzing, the event information data to determine event metadata, the analyzing step comprising: 1) extracting, the event information data from the notification; 2) analyzing, the event information data to determine one or more event attributes, the event attributes comprising at least a severity attribute; 3) generating, the event metadata corresponding to the event attributes, wherein the event metadata comprises a first plurality of searchable database records, each record in the first plurality of records comprising a plurality of fields that each stores an event attribute / receiving or obtaining, display data corresponding to one or more non-personal digital displays / analyzing, the display data to determine display metadata corresponding to the one or more non-personal digital displays, the step of analyzing comprising:1) determining, one or more display attributes, the step of determining one or more display attributes comprising at least one of:i) parsing, to determine one or more display attributes; or ii) referencing, one or more tags disposed at the one or more non-personal digital displays to determine one or more display attributes / generating, the display metadata based on the one or more display attributes, wherein the display metadata comprises a second plurality of searchable database records, each record in the second plurality of records comprising a second plurality of fields that each stores a display attribute / selecting, at least one non-personal digital display for display of the event information data, the step of selecting comprising: 1) comparing, the display metadata with the event metadata, wherein the comparing comprises: i. selecting, at least one event attribute from at least one of the first plurality of fields in at least one of the first plurality of records; ii. selecting, based on the at least one selected event attribute, at least one corresponding display attribute stored in at least one of the second plurality of fields in the second plurality of records; and iii. determining, that the at least one selected corresponding display attribute at least partially matches the at least one selected event attribute based at least on proximity data associated with the at least one selected event attribute and at least one selected corresponding display attribute; 2) selecting, for display of the event information data, based on the comparison, at least one non-personal digital display having the at least one selected corresponding display attribute that at least partially matches with the at least one of the selected event-attributes / adjusting the looped digital content that has been pre-set to display on the selected at least one non-personal digital display by including the display of the event information data within the looped digital content, the step of adjusting comprising / generating display rules associated with display of content , the display rules comprising event rules associated with display of the event notification data at the selected at least one non-personal digital display; determining, based on the event display rules, content to be displayed at each of the one or more non-personal digital displays; the event information is displayed in place of at least a portion of the pre-set looped content / generating, instructions for display of the event information data on the selected at least one non-personal digital display within looped content. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “The present invention generally relates to systems and methods for dynamically capturing,optimizing and displaying content on public and semi-public non-personal digital displays”, “The present invention generally relates to systems and methods for dynamically capturing and analyzing information, such as, for example, urgent notifications, and displaying the information and other types of content on public or semi-public non-personal digital displays so that such information may be made available to viewers in real-time or near real-time while optimizing the accessibility and effectiveness of the display of such information”, “In embodiments, for requests it is servicing, playlist optimizer module 180 may reach out in real time to one or more other relevant services and translate request level tags to the corresponding services, receives or otherwise obtains responses, and decides which response to use for each of the slots”. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – I.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: extracting the event information data from the notification/analyzing the event information data to determine one or more event attributes, the event attributes comprising at least a severity attribute / generating the event metadata corresponding to the event attributes/ generating display rules associated with display of content, the display rules comprising event display rules associated with display of the event notification data. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a system including computers/ digital displays/data collection module, which represent generic computing elements. The additional element of generating data in a dynamic manner does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing element represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality – the Spec. describes the claimed computing elements as: the third party source computer system is “an advertising server”, that may include processing modules: “may include a data collection module 110, an event parsing module 120, an event metadata database 130, a display parsing/tagging module 140, a display metadata database 150, a matching module 160, a rules module 170, a playlist optimizer module 180, and a content display module 190.”, the digital displays are described as “non-personal digital device 10 as digital signage affixed to a wall in a public or semi-public place, other non-personal network-connected digital devices and electronic displays in public and semi-public settings can also be used in accordance with exemplary embodiments of the present invention, such as the digital urban panel shown in FIGS. 2A-2C (discussed below); “the data collection module 110 may include one or more processors 1101 and a communication portal 1102 (e.g., for sending and/or receiving data). The one or more processors 1101 may include one or more processing devices such as, for example, a microprocessor, a microcontroller, an application- specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other type of processing circuitry, as well as portions or combinations of such circuitry elements”, “it should be appreciated that these components may be incorporated into modules of one or more components, or may be embodied in a single component having all of the functionality of these components. Further, it should be appreciated that these components may be associated with a computer-readable medium coupled to one or more data processing apparatus having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more data processing apparatus, cause the one or more data processing apparatus to perform the processes described herein. As shown by the dashed-line outline in FIG. 3, data collection module 110,event parsing module 120,event metadata database 130,display parsing/tagging module 140,display metadata database 150, matching module 160,rules module 170,playlist optimizer module 180, and content display module 190 may be collectively referred to herein as playlist optimizer system 100. In embodiments, playlist optimizer system 100 may have less than each of these modules, and/or may include other modules not shown in FIG. 3.” , “One or more software modules may be stored in the memory and running or configured to run on the one or more processors 1101. Such modules can include a static event notification module 1103. The processes performed by such modules, the data produced thereby and/or the data accessed thereby are described herein.” The additional element of generating data in a dynamic manner does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further include the additional elements of an API, a common network, third party source computer system, ad server, programmatic platform, which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the additional elements above, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant prior art: The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-10, 12-15. The most relevant prior art identified, Sheinfeld (20150169776), describes displaying contextual data respective of events, including receiving a request to analyze calendar data stored on a user device, wherein the calendar data comprises the event; generating metadata for the event based on the analyzed calendar date; identifying at least one parameter related to the event; searching through a plurality of web sources for contextual data related to the at least one identified parameter; and providing the contextual data to the user device; however, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claim 1.
Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132
Applicant’s submitted Declaration has been fully considered by the Examiner, but is not considered persuasive. The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 4/16/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-10, 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the last Office action because: the Examiner, as noted in the previous Office Action as well as above, maintains the position that the pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and that the pending claims, when implemented, do not provide a technological solution to a technical problem. The claimed computing elements that are used to implement the claimed invention represent generic computing elements, as noted above. Providing digital out of home media/advertising represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeing to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “The present invention generally relates to systems and methods for dynamically capturing,optimizing and displaying content on public and semi-public non-personal digital displays”, “The present invention generally relates to systems and methods for dynamically capturing and analyzing information, such as, for example, urgent notifications, and displaying the information and other types of content on public or semi-public non-personal digital displays so that such information may be made available to viewers in real-time or near real-time while optimizing the accessibility and effectiveness of the display of such information”, “In embodiments, for requests it is servicing, playlist optimizer module 180 may reach out in real time to one or more other relevant services and translate request level tags to the corresponding services, receives or otherwise obtains responses, and decides which response to use for each of the slots”. See Office Action above (as well as the Response to Arguments below) for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis and response to arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant draws the Examiner's attention to the December 4, 2025 Memorandum issued by USPTO Director John A Squires to the Patent Examining Corps, titled "Subject Matter
Eligibility Declarations" (the "Director's SMED Memorandum"). In that Memorandum, Director
Squires expressly reminded Examiners of the existing option for applicants to submit
declarations under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 as Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations ("SMEDs") to
proffer evidence establishing patent subject matter eligibility, and provided detailed guidance on
the proper evidentiary weight that Examiners must accord such declarations.
Submitted herewith is the Declaration oflvan Zatkovich under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 (the
"Zatkovich Declaration"), which constitutes a SMED as described in the Director's SMED
Memorandum. Mr. Zatkovich is the Principal Consultant of eComp Consultants, with over thirty
years of direct experience in a diverse set of areas including, media streaming and distribution,
multimedia content management, and targeted advertising systems, with extensive experience
designing and implementing large-scale platforms for digital content delivery and online
marketing. Zatkovich Declaration, 1-2.
Mr. Zatkovich has deep experience in eMarketing, and targeted advertising systems,
including keyword strategies, personalization engines, and user-driven content delivery. Id, at 3.
His work includes evaluating how advertising content is placed, distributed, and optimized
across platforms, including systems relevant to media placement, outdoor display technologies,
and digital advertising networks. Id. He has also designed and analyzed media streaming servers,
audio/video encoding systems, and content distribution platforms. Id
The Zatkovich Declaration provides specific, detailed, factually supported expert
testimony on: (1) the state of the art in digital out of home ("DOOH") media content
management systems at the time of the invention; (2) the concrete technological problem that
conventional DOOH systems were incapable of solving; (3) the unconventional and non-routine
nature of the specific computer-implemented processes recited in the claims; and (4) the concrete
technological improvement to DOOH content management computer systems that the claimed
invention achieves. Zatkovich Declaration. 12-31.
As Director Squires confirmed in the SMED Memorandum, when an applicant submits a
properly executed declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 that meets the formal requirements such
as timeliness, proper signature, and the willful false statements clause, the "Examiner must
consider it on the merits". Director's SMED Memorandum at 3 (emphasis added). As Director
Squires notes, "[t]he Examiner must carefully consider all of the applicant's arguments and the
evidence rebutting the subject matter eligibility rejection when evaluating the applicant's
response". Id. (citing MPEP § 2106.07(b). Thus, the evidence provided in the declaration must
be taken into account whenever properly presented, and the Examiner must weigh all relevant
evidence of record and then determine whether the claims are eligible based on the
preponderance of the evidence standard. Id. Further, "[i]f the rejection is maintained in the next
Office action, the examiner must explain, based on all evidence of record including the
declaration, why the subject matter eligibility rejection has not been overcome". Id.
The Zatkovich Declaration satisfies all formal requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132. It is
timely filed, properly signed by Mr. Zatkovich, and includes the required willful false statements
clause under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Accordingly, the Examiner is obligated to consider it on the
merits and to give it meaningful evidentiary weight in the§ 101 analysis, as mandated by the
Director's SMED Memorandum and MPEP § 716.
II. REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being "directed
to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without
significantly more." Office Action at page 2. The Examiner has maintained that Claim 1 is
directed to a "commercial interaction" constituting an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and
that the additional elements of the claim do not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical
application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. Office
Action, p. 2,5. Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's rejection is legally and
factually deficient for at least the following reasons.
First, the claims are directed to a specific, concrete, computer-implemented
technological solution, namely, a method for dynamically inserting real-time event-driven
content into an otherwise static pre-set digital out-of-home ("DOOH") content loop without
human intervention and within a real-time performance window of 2-5 seconds, and thus are not
directed to a "commercial interaction" or any other abstract idea.
The dynamic insertion process recited in the claims is one that is categorically incapable
of being performed by a human operator and requires, by its very nature, computer-implemented
execution across networked systems and structured databases. As Mr. Zatkovich explains:
No human operator, or operators, could monitor thousands of
geographically distributed displays, ingest and parse event notification data from
multiple external API sources, extract and classify structured metadata attributes,
execute a hierarchical matching algorithm across multiple large relational
databases, arbitrate among competing content rules drawn from multiple
programmatic advertising sources, and transmit machine-readable display
instructions to selected displays within a real time performance window and
without interruption to the existing content loop.
Zatkovich Declaration, 13. As Mr. Zatkovich explains this is not merely a matter of speed or scale; it requires the
coordinated execution of multiple computer-implemented functions across networked systems
with no human or manual analog. Id.
Moreover, even assuming for arguments sake, the claims recite an abstract idea, they
integrate that idea into a practical application by improving the technical functioning of DOOH
content management systems in ways conventional systems could not achieve.
Third, the claims include additional elements such as tag-based display attribute
classification, hierarchical tag-walking matching algorithms, structured searchable metadata
databases, and priority-based multi-source playlist optimization that, individually and in ordered
combination, amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.
Fourth, the accompanying Zatkovich Declaration, submitted as a SMED consistent with
the Director's SMED Memorandum dated December 4, 2025, provides expert testimony
establishing the unconventional and non-routine nature of the claimed computer-implemented
processes, and this Declaration must be given meaningful evidentiary weight in the Examiner's
eligibility analysis as mandated by that Memorandum.
A Step 2A, Prong 1:
The USPTO's recent guidance requires Examiners to distinguish claims that recite an
exception from those that merely involve one. USPTO Memorandum, Aug. 4, 2025. Here, the
Examiner failed to make that distinction. Rather than explaining how the claimed limitations are
abstract, the Examiner quoted claim and specification language and drew a conclusory
conclusion that the claims as a whole are abstract. Office Action, pp. 2-5. This broad-brush
approach is precisely what the PTAB condemned in Ex parte Toru Shimuta, which emphasized
that Examiners cannot apply a "broad-brush approach in identifying purported recitations of
abstract ideas" as it "is overly inclusive and runs counter to the USPTO Guidance." Ex parte
Toru Shimuta, Decision on Appeal 2024-001746, at 6, (PTAB June 12, 2025).
This principle is reinforced by Director Squires' designation of In re DeJjardins, Appeal
No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) as precedential
on November 4, 2025. As Director Squires specifically noted in the SMED Memorandum, the
ARP in Desjardins "warned against overbroad Section 101 rejections" because "'[c]ategorically
excluding [technological] innovations from patent protection in the United States jeopardized
America's leadership in[] critical emerging technolog[ies]."' Director's SMED Memorandum at
1 ( quoting Desjardins at 9). Consistent with Desjardins, an Examiner's characterization of a
specific, computer-implemented technological method as merely a "commercial interaction,"
based solely on the commercial context in which the technology operates, exemplifies the type of
overbroad § 101 rejection that the Director has cautioned against.
Here, the Examiner has committed precisely this error. The Examiner identifies the
abstract idea by pointing to the general context in which the claimed invention operates, digital
out-of-home advertising displays, rather than to what the claims actually recite. Office Action, p.
4. However, the claims do not recite advertising, business relations, or sales activities as
such. Rather, as Mr. Zatkovich confirms, the claims recite a specific, ordered, computer implemented method comprising an unconventional and non-routine combination of computer
processes: (1) receiving real-time event notification data through a data collection module via APIbased
event data ingestion;
(2) receiving and analyzing that data to generate structured event metadata comprising a
first plurality of searchable database records;
(3) analyzing display data through tag-based display attribute classifications;
( 4) executing a hierarchical tag-walking matching algorithm using proximity data to
identify which specific non-personal digital displays correspond to the event;
(5) generating priority-based event display rules; and
(6) dynamically adjusting a pre-set content loop to insert event-driven content on selected
displays without human intervention, all within a real-time performance window.
Zatkovich Declaration, 15-18.
None of these steps constitute a "commercial interaction." Rather, they constitute a
specific, technically bounded, computer-implemented solution to a concrete technological
problem, namely the inability of conventional static DOOH content loops to respond dynamically to real-world events without manual reconfiguration by a network content manager.
Zatkovich Declaration, 13; Specification, [003]-[005].
As Mr. Zatkovich explains, at the time of the invention, conventional DOOH media
algorithms required the network manager to input information regarding a pre-set loop that
repeated within a specific time frame, with slots already filled within the loop, such that
displayed content was static and could not change dynamically in real time without manual
intervention. Zatkovich Declaration, 13 ( citing Specification, [004 ]).
Mr. Zatkovich further explains that the limitation that "that the content of a single slot
could not be changed without updating the entirety of the loop" was not a business limitation it
was a concrete technical limitation of the computer systems and network architectures that prior
art DOOH systems employed. Id. The challenge of dynamically inserting real-time, event-driven
content into an otherwise static DOOH content loop, without human intervention and within a
real-time performance window of 2-5 seconds, was beyond the capabilities of conventional
DOOH systems at the time and is categorically impossible to perform through any human operated
process. Id.
As Director Squires further observed in the SMED Memorandum, the "something more"
inquiry under Alice requires an evaluation of "how the invention is applied, how it operates
and/or what it accomplished" and critically, "when the claimed system changes the architecture
itself- e.g., how information flows, not just what it does - that may satisfy eligibility."
Director's SMED Memorandum at 1-2. The claimed method here does precisely this: it changes
the architecture of DOOH content management systems by introducing a specific, dynamic, realtime
event-detection and content-insertion workflow comprising API-based event data ingestion,
automated metadata extraction and structured database storage, tag-based display attribute
classification, hierarchical tag-walking matching algorithms, and priority-based multi-source
play list optimization, that did not previously exist in the architecture of any prior art DOOH
system. Zatkovich Declaration, 14.
Furthermore, the Examiner's identification of certain individual sub-steps, such as
"extracting the event information data" and "analyzing the event information data", as mental
concepts that can be performed in the human mind is demonstrably incorrect when the claims are
considered as a whole. Office Action, p. 5. The Director's SMED Memorandum specifically addressed this scenario, providing as an example a case where an Examiner identifies claim
limitations as falling within the mental process grouping, and noting that a properly submitted
SMED containing expert testimony explaining that the claim limitations cannot practically be
performed in the human mind, together with objective evidence showing that the specific
processes cannot practically be performed in the human mind, can and should overcome such a
finding when the Examiner weighs all relevant evidence of record under the preponderance of
the evidence standard. Director's SMED Memorandum at 4.
Here, the Zatkovich Declaration provides precisely such evidence. As Mr. Zatkovich
explains:
The use of physical machine-readable tags disposed at individual display
locations to programmatically characterize each display, and the use of a
hierarchical tag-walking function to traverse relational tag structures across
display, event, and content objects, represents a specific, unconventional technical
mechanism that was not part of any prior art DOOH system architecture. The
nature of this process also makes it inherently and exclusively computerdependent.
The classification and cross-referencing of display attributes across a
large-scale network of non-personal digital displays, each characterized by its
own set of machine-readable tags stored across relational database structures,
demands a level of parallelized data retrieval, structured comparison, and realtime
record generation that is architecturally incompatible with any manual
process. A human operator presented with the same inputs would have no
mechanism by which to traverse relational tag structures across display, event,
and content objects, generate structured searchable database records, and produce
matched output within an operationally meaningful timeframe. The claimed
process is not simply accelerated by a computer, it is made possible exclusively
by one.
Zatkovich Declaration, 17 ( emphasis added).
As shown above, Mr. Zatkovich confirms that the claimed invention cannot be performed
in the human mind. The mental processes category applies only to concepts that can practically
be carried out mentally, which these claims cannot be.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's Step 2A, Prong 1
characterization of the claims as directed to an abstract idea is not adequately supported and
should be withdrawn.
B. Step 2A, Prong 2: Even assuming, for arguments sake, that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims are
nonetheless patent eligible because they integrate that alleged abstract idea into a practical
application. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Consistent with the MPEP, a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
when it employs the exception in a meaningful way beyond merely associating it with a
particular technological setting, such as by "improves the functioning of a computer or improves
another technology or technical field". MPEP § 2106.04(d)(l). The USPTO's Step 2A
framework is expressly designed to be a two-prong analysis in which the practical application
analysis under Prong 2 evaluates the claim as a whole. MPEP § 2106.04.See also USPTO
January 7, 2019 Revised Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 84 Fed. Reg. 50.
a. The Claims Improve the Technical Functioning of DOOH Content Management
Computer Systems
The claimed method specifically and concretely improves the functioning ofDOOH
content management computer systems in a manner that was not previously possible. As
established in the Zatkovich Declaration and confirmed by the specification, conventional
DOOH systems at the time of the invention operated exclusively through static, pre-configured
content loops that could not be modified without manual intervention by a network content
manager. Zatkovich Deel arati on, 13 (citing Specifi cation, [ 004]).
Since the content being displayed was locked into a static, pre-configured loop, the
substance of what appeared on any given display at any given moment could not change until the
network manager manually input a new loop and associated slot content, meaning that the
content of a single slot could not be changed without updating the entirety of the loop. Id. This
was not a business limitation, it was a concrete technical limitation of the computer systems and
network architectures that prior art DOOH systems employed. Id.
The claimed method overcomes this technical limitation through a specific, nonconventional
arrangement of computer-implemented processes. As Mr. Zatkovich explains, "the
inventors of the present invention came up with a unique and innovative computer method and
process to dynamically capture, analyze, and display event-driven content on public and semipublic
non-personal digital displays in real time, without requiring manual reconfiguration of the
pre-set content loop by a network content manager". Zatkovich Declaration, 14. This
technological solution is made up of a unique combination of unconventional and non-routine
computer processes including "API-based event data ingestion, dynamic metadata extraction and
structured database storage, tag-based display attribute classification, hierarchical tag walking
matching algorithms, and priority-based multi-source playlist optimization." Id
Together, these processes achieve a result ofreal-time dynamic slot configuration within
an otherwise static DOOH content loop that was not achievable by any prior art DOOH system,
whether manual or computer-implemented. Id. at 10, 22-23.
The Director's SMED Memorandum directly supports this type of improvement to
technology showing. In particular, the Memorandum provides an example where "the applicant
argues that the claimed invention ... provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer
under Step 2" supported by a SMED that "provides expert testimony to establish the state of the
art at the time of filing and how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed
invention as improving the functioning of a computer, and the underlying factual basis for that
conclusion." Director's SMED Memorandum at 5. The Memorandum further explains that such
testimony may be grounded in "the specification's discussion of the prior art" and how "[t]he
declaration also explains where the improvement is reflected in the claim." Id.
Here, the Zatkovich Declaration satisfies precisely these requirements. It establishes the
state of the art in DOOH content management systems at the time of the invention (Zatkovich
Declaration, 13), explains how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed
invention as improving the functioning ofDOOH content management computer systems
(Zatkovich Declaration 13, 12-24), and provides the underlying factual basis for that conclusion
by specifically identifying the prior art technical limitations overcome by the claimed processes
and the specific unconventional mechanisms by which those limitations are overcome
(Zatkovich Declaration 14, 16-20). There is an unambiguous nexus between the claimed
invention and the evidence of improvement: the Zatkovich Declaration addresses the specific
additional elements of Claim 1 and explains precisely how those elements, in their ordered
combination, improve the technical functioning ofDOOH content management computer
systems. Zatkovich Declaration, 15-20. Furthermore, Director Squires specifically noted in the SMED Memorandum that the
precedential Desjardins decision credited the claims at issue for "improving the functioning of
the machine learning model itself, citing reduced storage requirements, lowered system
complexity, and the prevention of 'catastrophic forgetting."' Director's SMED Memorandum at 1.
Similarly here, the claimed invention improves the functioning ofDOOH content management
computer systems themselves by enabling automated, real-time dynamic content insertion within
a static loop architecture, a capability that, as the Zatkovich Declaration confirms, did not exist in
and could not be achieved by any prior art DOOH system. Zatkovich Declaration, 13-17, 20, 26,
27.
As Mr. Zatkovich specifically explains,"[t]he inventive technical solution is not one that
can be provided by hand or through any manual process, but is instead much grounded in
computer and network-based technology, and is particularly unique to computerized DOOH
content management systems." Id. at 22. This is a direct improvement to the technical
functioning of the computer systems at issue, not merely an optimization of a business practice.
This is precisely the type of improvement to a computer-implemented technology that courts and
the USPTO have recognized as constituting a practical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to a specific improvement to computer
functionality are patent eligible); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims using rules to automate a process previously performed manually and
enabling results not previously achievable are patent eligible).
The Examiner maintains that the claimed improvement pertains to "a business practice
optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field" and further asserts that
"there is no technical support/technical evidence in the Applicant's Specification of technical
improvements or of a technical solution to a technical problem." Office Action, 14-15. The
Zatkovich Declaration constitutes precisely such technical evidence, providing a factually
detailed account of the specific technological problem presented by prior art DOOH systems and
the specific unconventional computer-implemented solution developed by the inventors.
Zatkovich Declaration 13-17, 20, 26, 27. The Director's SMED Memorandum confirms that
"[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, so long as the specification
describes the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one ordinary skill in the
art" and that "a SMED may provide facts that describe the state of the art at the time of filing".
Director's SMED Memorandum at 3. Thus, the Examiner's assertion that there is no technical
evidence of a technical improvement can no longer be sustained in view of the Zatkovich
Declaration.
b. Ex Parte Rogan Supports a Finding of Practical Application
The Board's decision in Ex parte Denis Rogan, Decision on Appeal 2023-001619, (PTAB
Aug. 26, 2025), provides a view into how the PT AB analyzes step 2A, prong 2 analysis. In that
case, the Board found claims directed to an airport airside advertising system to be patent eligible
at Step 2A, explaining that "the use of the one or more sensor elements in the claimed
configuration ... permits detection of the aircraft within a predetermined range to control the
actuation signal to the billboard in response, which is said to be more energy sufficient than
previously known systems." Ex parte Rogan, p. 10.
Similarly, here, the claimed method uses a data collection module to receive real-time
event notification data from one or more content sources, analyzes that data through specific
computer-implemented metadata processes, and dynamically controls the output of selected nonpersonal
digital displays based on that analysis, all without human intervention. This is not a
commercial interaction. It is a detection and response type computer-implemented method that
specifically and concretely improves the technical capabilities of a DOOH content management
network. Additionally, the claimed method here goes further by requiring not merely the
detection of a physical event and the triggering of a display output, but the real-time execution of
a multi-step computational workflow, including metadata extraction, hierarchical tag-walking
matching, and priority-based playlist arbitration, which is architecturally dependent on computer implemented
processing and cannot be reduced to or replicated by any human-directed process.
Zatkovich Declaration, 14-28.
c. Dependent Claims 5, 7, and 11 Further Confirm the Practical Application
The dependent claims reinforce and extend the core technological improvement of Claim
1. Dependent Claim 5 recites that the complete multi-step computational workflow of Claim 1
must be executed within a period of less than 5 seconds. Zatkovich Declaration, 23. As Mr. Zatkovich explains, "[t]his performance requirement is independently dispositive of the human incapability
argument as no human operator could execute the complete ordered sequence of
computational processes recited in Claim 1 within a 5-second window". Id.
Dependent Claim 7 recites integrating with a third-party data provider through an
application programming interface. Zatkovich Declaration, 24. This API-based integration
confirms that the event notification data received in Claim 1 element (b) is transmitted through a
computer-to-computer communication protocol that has no human-directed equivalent. Id. By
ingesting real-time event data via an API, the claimed invention eliminates the manual bottleneck
that prevented conventional DOOH systems from dynamically updating pre-set content loops. Id.
Dependent Claim 11 recites that the event display rules govern what event information
data should be displayed, when it should be displayed, and at what frequency. Zatkovich
Declaration, 25. Conventional DOOH systems relied on static, pre-configured content loops
requiring manual reconfiguration to control what content appeared, when, and how often. Id. The
event display rules recited in Claim 11 directly overcome this limitation by enabling the
computers to "dynamically generate and apply those same determinations in real time, without
human intervention, dynamically updating pre-set content loop slots as events occur". Id. Mr
Zatkovich further explains that "[t]his computer-implemented, rules-based slot configuration
capability is the specific mechanism by which the claimed invention achieves dynamic slot
updates within an otherwise static content loop". Id.
d. The Examiner Conflates the Environment of the Claimed Invention With What
the Claims Actually Recite
Throughout the rejection, the Examiner repeatedly quotes specification language
describing the commercial context of the invention to characterize the claimed invention as
directed to a commercial interaction. Office Action, 11,14,17. This approach conflates the
environment in which the claimed method operates with what the method actually recites and is
contrary to controlling guidance.
As Director Squires noted in the SMED Memorandum, the statutory definition of
"process" under 35 U.S.C. § l00(b) "includes a new use of a known process, machine,
manufacture, composition of matter, or material." Director's SMED Memorandum at 2 n. l. The
claimed method is a new computer-implemented process applied within the DOOH content management field and the fact that the field is commercial in nature does not transform the
claimed process into a commercial interaction. As the Board recognized in Ex parte Benjamin
Lis and Francois Lepart, Decision on Appeal 2024-002090, (PTAB Mar. 24, 2025), that software
claims are patent eligible when directed to "non-abstract improvements" that identify a
"'specific' improvement in computer capabilities ... rather than only claiming a desirable result or
function." Ex parte Lis, p. 19 (quoting TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir.
2020)). As Mr. Zatkovich confirms, the invention here "is not a simple endeavor involving the
routine display of content on a screen, but actually involves a concrete, tangible, and elaborately
ordered computer algorithm, applied uniquely to computerized DOOH content management
systems." Zatkovich Declaration, 30.
III. III. THE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS OF THE CLAIMS AMOUNT TO
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN ANY ALLEGED ABSTRACT IDEA UNDER
STEP 2B
Even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical
application under Step 2A (which Applicant respectfully denies), the claims nonetheless recite
additional elements that, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly
more than the alleged judicial exception under Step 2B.
A The Claimed Additional Elements Are Not Generic Computing Components Recited at a
High Level of Generality
The Examiner's Step 2B analysis relies on the assertion that "the claimed computing
elements represent generic computing elements" recited at a high level of generality. Office
Action at 17. Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization is incorrect with respect to
the specific technical processes that give the claimed method its inventive character.
The claimed additional elements are not mere recitations of "a computer" or "a processor."
Rather, the claims recite specific, ordered, non-routine computational processes. For example,
Claim 1, element (e) recites a unique, unconventional computer solution that determines relevant
displays for an event using non-routine metadata generation and comparison. Additionally,
Claim 1, elements (g) and (h) recite a unique, unconventional computer solution for dynamically
updating content loops with event-driven content and generating display instructions using non
routine steps. As the Zatkovich Declaration explains in detail, these processes, particularly the
inclusion of "physical machine-readable tags disposed at individual display locations to
programmatically characterize each display, and the use of a hierarchical tag-walking function to
traverse relational tag structures across display, event, and content objects, represents a specific,
unconventional technical mechanism that was not part of any prior art DOOH system
architecture." Zatkovich Declaration, 17.
Claim l(e)'s tag-based display classification and metadata generation is detailed,
unconventional, and distinct, as prior DOOH systems neither used machine-readable tags and
structured metadata nor programmatically compared display and event metadata for real-time
targeting. Id. Furthermore, the dynamic adjustment process implemented through elements (g)
and (h) goes beyond merely displaying content on digital screens. Zatkovich Declaration, 18.
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites specific, non-routine computational processes that
go well beyond generic computer implementation and instead provide a concrete technological
solution to limitations in conventional DOOH systems. These unconventional arrangements of
elements, as supported by the Zatkovich Declaration, supply the requisite inventive concept
under Step 2B.
B. The Ordered Combination of Additional Elements Is Inventive
As the Federal Circuit recognized in BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC
"an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
known, conventional pieces." BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even if the claimed invention
was deemed an abstract idea using generic components, these additional elements constitute an
inventive concept through their non-conventional arrangement, as implemented to solve the
specific and previously unsolvable technical problem ofreal-time dynamic content insertion into
a static DOOH content loop, which constitutes an inventive concept sufficient for patent
eligibility. As Mr. Zatkovich confirms, "the combination of each of these detailed and particular
computer steps creates a technological solution to the technological problem of how to
dynamically insert real-time event-driven content into a pre-set DOOH media content loop
without human intervention and within a real-time performance window". Zatkovich Declaration, 20. The Examiner distinguished BASCOM on the grounds that the claimed
invention "does not improve the functionality of the computer nor does it improve a
technology/technical field." Office Action, 16-17. As demonstrated above, and as confirmed by
the Zatkovich Declaration, Applicant respectfully submits that this premise is incorrect. The
claimed invention does improve the functionality ofDOOH content management computer
systems by enabling a specific technical capability that did not exist in prior art systems.
Zatkovich Declaration, 13-15,18,21,26.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the § 101 rejection of Claims
1-10 and 12-15 is deficient and should be withdrawn. The claims are directed to a specific,
computer-implemented technological solution. Specifically, the real-time, dynamic insertion of
event-driven content into static DOOH loops which improve DOOH media system functionality
and cannot be performed by humans or prior art systems. Applicant respectfully disagrees that
the claimed invention is directed to and abstract, but, even if an abstract idea were implicated,
the claims integrate it into a practical application through an unconventional combination of
processes including API-based ingestion, metadata-driven classification and matching, and
priority-based optimization, the summation of which amounts to significantly more under Step
2B. The accompanying Zatkovich Declaration, submitted as a Subject Matter Eligibility
Declaration pursuant to the Director's SMED Memorandum of December 4, 2025, provides
unrebutted expert testimony establishing each of these points, and the Examiner is respectfully
urged to give that Declaration the meaningful evidentiary weight it is due.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims relate to patentable
subject matter and are thus patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In light of the above, it is
respectfully submitted that all of the pending claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter,
so as to be in condition for allowance.
The rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 is maintained by the Examiner, as noted in the previous as well as current Office Action above.
As noted above: Applicant’s submitted Declaration has been fully considered by the Examiner, but is not considered persuasive. The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 4/16/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-10, 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the last Office action because: the Examiner, as noted in the previous Office Action as well as above, maintains the position that the pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and that the pending claims, when implemented, do not provide a technological solution to a technical problem. The claimed invention is plainly directed to method that dynamically gathers, optimizes and displays content on digital displays, content which is further described in the Spec. as “such as, for example, one area for public service advertisements and/or news items and a second area for display of advertising”, “The middle of the screen may display advertisements (programmatic or otherwise), the sides of the screen may display general information such as, for example, date, time, and local temperature, to name a few, and/or news items such as, for example, sports scores, stock market information, and weather forecasts, to name a few.” Thus, the invention is clearly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. selecting and providing advertising content). The claimed computing elements that are used to implement the claimed invention represent generic computing elements, as noted above. Providing digital out of home media/advertising represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeing to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “The present invention generally relates to systems and methods for dynamically capturing,optimizing and displaying content on public and semi-public non-personal digital displays”, “The present invention generally relates to systems and methods for dynamically capturing and analyzing information, such as, for example, urgent notifications, and displaying the information and other types of content on public or semi-public non-personal digital displays so that such information may be made available to viewers in real-time or near real-time while optimizing the accessibility and effectiveness of the display of such information”, “In embodiments, for requests it is servicing, playlist optimizer module 180 may reach out in real time to one or more other relevant services and translate request level tags to the corresponding services, receives or otherwise obtains responses, and decides which response to use for each of the slots”. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
When performing the 35 CFR 101 Analysis, the Examiner has followed the current MPEP Guidance, as well as considered the Desjardins Memo. The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, as noted above. Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising activities/behaviors, business relations, sales activities, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106. The relevant claimed limitations include: display digital content within a preset loop / receive a notification of an event from at least one of the one or more digital content sources , the notification comprising event information data / receiving or obtaining, a notification of a first event from at least one of the one or more content sources, the notification comprising event information data associated with the first event / analyzing, the event information data to determine event metadata, the analyzing step comprising: 1) extracting, the event information data from the notification; 2) analyzing, the event information data to determine one or more event attributes, the event attributes comprising at least a severity attribute; 3) generating, the event metadata corresponding to the event attributes, wherein the event metadata comprises a first plurality of searchable database records, each record in the first plurality of records comprising a plurality of fields that each stores an event attribute / receiving or obtaining, display data corresponding to one or more non-personal digital displays / analyzing, the display data to determine display metadata corresponding to the one or more non-personal digital displays, the step of analyzing comprising:1) determining, one or more display attributes, the step of determining one or more display attributes comprising at least one of:i) parsing, to determine one or more display attributes; or ii) referencing, one or more tags disposed at the one or more non-personal digital displays to determine one or more display attributes / generating, the display metadata based on the one or more display attributes, wherein the display metadata comprises a second plurality of searchable database records, each record in the second plurality of records comprising a second plurality of fields that each stores a display attribute / selecting, at least one non-personal digital display for display of the event information data, the step of selecting comprising: 1) comparing, the display metadata with the event metadata, wherein the comparing comprises: i. selecting, at least one event attribute from at least one of the first plurality of fields in at least one of the first plurality of records; ii. selecting, based on the at least one selected event attribute, at least one corresponding display attribute stored in at least one of the second plurality of fields in the second plurality of records; and iii. determining, that the at least one selected corresponding display attribute at least partially matches the at least one selected event attribute based at least on proximity data associated with the at least one selected event attribute and at least one selected corresponding display attribute; 2) selecting, for display of the event information data, based on the comparison, at least one non-personal digital display having the at least one selected corresponding display attribute that at least partially matches with the at least one of the selected event-attributes / adjusting the looped digital content that has been pre-set to display on the selected at least one non-personal digital display by including the display of the event information data within the looped digital content, the step of adjusting comprising / generating display rules associated with display of content , the display rules comprising event rules associated with display of the event notification data at the selected at least one non-personal digital display; determining, based on the event display rules, content to be displayed at each of the one or more non-personal digital displays; the event information is displayed in place of at least a portion of the pre-set looped content / generating, instructions for display of the event information data on the selected at least one non-personal digital display within looped content. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “The present invention generally relates to systems and methods for dynamically capturing,optimizing and displaying content on public and semi-public non-personal digital displays”, “The present invention generally relates to systems and methods for dynamically capturing and analyzing information, such as, for example, urgent notifications, and displaying the information and other types of content on public or semi-public non-personal digital displays so that such information may be made available to viewers in real-time or near real-time while optimizing the accessibility and effectiveness of the display of such information”, “In embodiments, for requests it is servicing, playlist optimizer module 180 may reach out in real time to one or more other relevant services and translate request level tags to the corresponding services, receives or otherwise obtains responses, and decides which response to use for each of the slots”. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – I.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: extracting the event information data from the notification/analyzing the event information data to determine one or more event attributes, the event attributes comprising at least a severity attribute / generating the event metadata corresponding to the event attributes/ generating display rules associated with display of content, the display rules comprising event display rules associated with display of the event notification data. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see above, thus still being in the mental process category. Remaining dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves.
In response to Applicant’s argument pertaining to PTAB cases: Applicant cites to a number of PTAB cases which are neither persuasive nor binding.
The instant claimed invention and Bascom have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Bascom, the Courts concluded that the claim limitation takes as an “ordered combination” under step two are an inventive concept, sufficient for patent eligibility under 35 USC 101. When considered as an ordered combination, the Federal Circuit concluded the claims provided "an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." Id. Because of the ordered combination elements, the claims in Bascom were considered to improve the functionality of the computer, and thus amounted to significantly more under step two of the Alice analysis. Contrary to Bascom, the instant claimed invention, when implemented, does not improve the functionality of the computer nor does it improve a technology/technical field. The present claims recite an abstract idea using additional elements that are generic computing components as discussed supra, or at best, improving an abstract idea - not an inventive concept. There is no technical evidence/technical support in the Applicant's Specification of technical improvements or of a technical solution to a technical problem. As noted above, the pending claims do recite an abstract idea and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Presenting targeted content based on rules/criteria (on personal and/or non-personal digital devices) represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. As also noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality; they do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “The present invention generally relates to systems and methods for dynamically capturing,optimizing and displaying content on public and semi-public non-personal digital displays”, “The present invention generally relates to systems and methods for dynamically capturing and analyzing information, such as, for example, urgent notifications, and displaying the information and other types of content on public or semi-public non-personal digital displays so that such information may be made available to viewers in real-time or near real-time while optimizing the accessibility and effectiveness of the display of such information”, “In embodiments, for requests it is servicing, playlist optimizer module 180 may reach out in real time to one or more other relevant services and translate request level tags to the corresponding services, receives or otherwise obtains responses, and decides which response to use for each of the slots”. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec., including the paras referenced by the Applicant above that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
4/20/2026
Prosecution Insights