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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/3/2025 has been entered.
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 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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Double Patenting - The Office Action rejects claim 1 based on non-statutory double patenting over U.S. Patent No. 11,416,890. A terminal disclaimer is submitted herewith so that this rejection is rendered moot.
The double patenting rejection has been overcome and has been withdrawn.
a. The claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity. The conventional DOOH media process is "static in the sense that loop content does not change until the network manager inputs another loop and associated slot content." Specification, [004]. The claimed method is directed at improving this process by creating a dynamic system which can adjust content in real time. Specification, [044]. The claimed method does not simply claim the advertising system itself, rather the claims recite an improved method that involves an advertising system. The Examiner notes that "[p]resenting targeted content based on rules/criteria (on personal and/or non-personal digital devices) represents a business practice/goal". Office Action, pg. 8. The Examiner overlooked the substance of the claim's recitation, which is the unique ability to insert broadcasts into an otherwise static loop, and not a method of targeted content delivery. The M.P.E.P. defines the mental process category of abstract ideas "as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions" M.P.E.P. §2106.04(a)(2). The Examiner incorrectly classified the claimed method as a mental concept. Office Action, pg. 6. The Examiner broadly conflated the conventional DOOH media system, with the claimed improvement which merely involves a DOOH media system. The conventional system includes both mental and manual processes as the static loops are predetermined by a network content manager. Specification, [043]. However, the claimed invention uses the "placement of software and/or hardware components between advertising computer systems, event notification sources, and network or non-networked non- personal digital displays" to process multiple sources of incoming data and dynamically insert broadcasts without creating a new loop. Specification, [044]. This process is impossible for a human mind to perform simply because a human mind is incapable of simultaneously analyzing and communicating with networks and databases to achieve a desired result in real-time (between 2 and 5 seconds). Specification, [042]. In the recent Board decision Ex parte TORU SHIMUTA, Appeal 2024-001746, Jun. 12, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as "Ex parte Shimuta") the Board held that Examiners cannot use a "broad-brush approach in identifying purported recitations of abstract ideas" because this "is overly inclusive and runs counter to the USPTO Guidance." Ex part Shimuta, pg. 6. Here, the Examiner alleges that because the claimed method involves a mental concept it also recites a mental concept. In the 101 rejection, the Examiner lists elements of the claimed method that reflect event recognition, analyzing the event, and generating display rules. Office Action, pg. 6. However, it is too broad of an approach to apply these limited concepts to the entirety of the claimed method when evaluating the claims recitation. Id. There is a distinction between the claimed method involving data analysis and decision making, and what the claims recite, which is a technical improvement that creates the ability to dynamically insert broadcasts into an otherwise static loop. The claims in the present application are not directed at a method of organizing human activity nor a mental concept. Indeed, the claims are more than a mere abstract idea in that they relate to a technical solution of a technical problem. As explained below, the claimed method concretely solves problems that conventional methods of DOOH media face.
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 below, 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. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 2 : Even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea, which they are not, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed method solves the technical problem that conventional DOOH media systems face, namely the inability to insert broadcasts into an advertisement loop without creating or implementing a new loop. The dynamic tracking and displaying of information can be updated in real-time without the need of network manager intervention, thereby providing a technical solution in that the display of content is made more efficient and functional. Specification [041]. In the Board decision Ex parte DENIS ROGAN, Appeal 2024-001619, August 26, 2025, (hereinafter referred to as "Ex parte Rogan") the Board reversed the Examiner's finding that a system of airport airside advertising, which senses and displays an advertisement when an aircraft is detected, was an abstract idea that did not integrate into a practical application. Exparte Rogan, pg. 10. The Board held 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." Id. Similar to Ex parte Rogan the claimed invention uses various hardware and software components, such as the data collection module, to receive and analyze triggering event information and as a result dynamically broadcast on a digital display in real-time. Steps (b) through (h) of claim 1 recite the receiving, analyzing, and displaying of event specific data based on physical proximity to the event. Just as the invention in Ex parte Rogan senses an event (an airplane in close proximity) and displays an advertisement, the claimed method here uses the data collection module to sense an event and dynamically insert a broadcast into a DOOH media system. Thus, like the holding in Ex Parte Rogan, the claimed method is more efficient than conventional methods and is a practical application of an alleged abstract idea. The Examiner contends that the method represents a business practice and thus improving this practice is an optimization of a business, not a technical improvement. Office Action, pg. 8. The Examiner further alleges that the additional elements represent generic computer components. Id. Applicant respectfully disagrees. First, the claims are not directed at a business practice. The claimed method involves a business practice rather than recites one. The claims recite a technical improvement in the dynamic delivery of DOOH media, and do not recite DOOH media itself. The improvement is not to the business practice but to the capabilities of data modules, common networks, programmatic servers, and digital displays. The Examiner conflated the systems involved in the claimed method with what the method is reciting. Id. Secondly, the additional elements of the claimed method are not generic computer components claimed at a high level of generality. In Ex parte BENJAMIN LIS and FRANCOIS LEPART, Appeal 2024-002090, Mar. 24, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as "Ex parte Lis") the Examiner similarly alleged that the claims do not amount to more than using generic computer components. Ex parte Lis p.17. The Board noted that software claims are patent eligible when directed to "non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer" that identifies 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, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2020. The Board held that the claims were an improvement to a technical process because they did not recite only the desired result, but instead a specific solution that achieves the desired goal. Ex parte Lis, p. 20. Here, Applicant points out a specific problem with conventional DOOH media and provides a method which achieves a desired result. The technical problem with conventional DOOH media systems is the static looping of slots that require intervention by a network content manager. The desired result is a method which allows dynamic updating of the static loop in real time. The claimed method steps describe not only how the networks interact with the programmatic systems to dynamically push updated broadcasts to the loop, but also includes a method of detecting relevant event data and inserting important broadcast information to specific non personal digital displays. Applicant asserts that the claimed methods are an improvement to the technical field of advertising network technology and therefore are a practical application.
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.
Step 2B - Even if the Examiner maintains that the claims are not a practical application, which they are, under Step 2B, the claims amount to significantly more. a. The Office Action continues to be deficient under Step 2B, since the Examiner failed to demonstrate that the claims are not significantly more. The Examiner fails to supply any reasoning to support the conclusion that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more. The Examiner simply alleges that the claimed method is not a technical improvement and therefore does not amount to significantly more. Office Action, pp. 8-9. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The claims here not only recite a novel solution, but also detail how to create the solution, thus sufficiently establishing significantly more. The Examiner makes conclusory statements in evaluating Step 2B. Although the M.P.E.P. states that Examiners can carry over their analysis from Step 2A, it also requires that Examiner's to: re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; M.P.E.P. 2106.05 II
Here, the Examiner does not reevaluate any elements, but rather relies on prior analysis to make conclusions. The conventional DOOH media systems use static loops of slots that are not capable of real-time dynamic updates. The claimed method improves upon what is conventional by creating a unique system that allows for dynamic insertion of advertisements in a preset loop system. The Examiner has failed to show any evidence that this is well understood, routine, or conventional as required by the M.P.E.P.M.P.E.P. 2105.05(d). The Examiner disagreed with Applicants assertion that the claimed invention is similar to Bascom. Office Action, pg. 9. The Examiner claims that Bascom and the present invention "have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous." Id. Applicant does not contend that the two claim sets and fact patterns are identical. However, this assertion does not mean that the findings in Bascom are not analogous to the invention at hand. Examiner alleges that unlike in Bascom, "there is no technical evidence/technical support in the Applicant's Specification of technical improvements or of a technical solution to a technical problem." Applicant respectfully disagrees. As Examiner admits "[b]ecause 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." Id. Here, the ordering and combination of network devices, data modules, programmatic servers, and nonpersonal digital displays provide a unique ability to dynamically insert broadcasts into a preset loop. Specification, [004]. Thus, Applicant further asserts that the claimed method is not well understood, known, or conventional.
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.
The Examiner did not present sufficient evidence in accordance with the Berkheimer Memorandum. In the recent decision Ex parte MILOS DUJNJIC, et al., Appeal 2024-004133, May 21, 2025 (herein referred to as "Exparte Dunjic") the Board reversed a patent ineligibility ruling for a method and system of completing data transfer because the Examiner did not provide sufficient evidence as required by the April 19, 2018 USPTO Memorandum ("Berkheimer Memorandum"). In addressing if additional elements are well understood, routine, or conventional the Examiner has not provided any of the four evidentiary requirements set out in the Berkheimer Memorandum, and as a result the Examiner's allegations are insufficient. 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. In the event that the Examiner disagrees, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner contact Applicant's undersigned attorney by telephone prior to issuing another Office Action.
The Office Action has fully complied with the Berkheimer Memo requirements. The Examiner-identified claimed additional elements comprise: a system/computers/computing module. 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 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. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Conclusion
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 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, 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).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
10/16/2025