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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 57, 9, 11-12, 15-17, 19-24, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The pending claims above recite the limitations of a prediction including “an associated confidence measure”, and of a static image comprising only “non-color changing safety indicia”, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 15-17, 19-24, 26-27 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 system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction – i.e. advertising/marketing activities or behaviors, business relations/sales activities, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: analyze one or more of a physical characteristic of a detected scene captured from at least one of the each of the one or more cameras, a behavior of a detected vehicle in the detected scene, and a number of occupants in the detected vehicle/ analyze the retrieved historical data / retrieve historical data based on one or more of a GPS location, a date, a day of week, a time, a vehicle type, an occupant type, and an occupant number / select, based on the prediction and the confidence measure, a minimum safe display interval candidate / determine, based on the prediction, the confidence measure, and the motion data, whether the system transporting vehicle and the detected vehicle are fully stopped for at least a minimum safe display interval, wherein the minimum safe display interval is set to be greater than or equal to a safety threshold corresponding to a driver reaction-time margin and a braking distance margin for the system transporting vehicle and further wherein the minimum safe display interval is dynamically computed as a
function of at least (i) a measured current speed of the system transporting vehicle prior
to stopping, (ii) a measured deceleration rate of the system transporting vehicle derived
from the motion data, and (iii) a predetermined driver reaction time parameter / in response to determining that the minimum safe display interval is not satisfied,
inhibit delivery of advertising media and cause to present one of a safety message or a non-advertising static image comprising only non-animated, non-color-changing safety indicia that remain unchanged while the system transporting vehicle is in motion / in response to determining that the minimum safe display interval is satisfied, select a media based on the prediction, wherein the media is a video segment or one or
more static images, and a length of the video segment or a display duration of the one or
more static images is based at least in part on the generated prediction and constrained by
the minimum safe display interval and wherein, upon detecting renewed motion of the
system transporting vehicle from the motion data before expiration of the minimum safe display interval, terminates display of the selected media and reverts to the safety message or the non-advertising static image / deliver the media / display a received media. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “When driving a vehicle, there are many advertisements placed where drivers/passengers can see them, e.g., billboards, buildings, storefronts, and other locations where businesses can be identified to a driver. Many of these locations are not directly in the driver's field of view, however, and require the driver to divert his/her attention to the billboard, storefront, etc., and away from the traffic that is closest to their vehicle. What is needed is predictive advertising systems and devices, with integrated
safety and privacy features, that are suitable for use in a mobile environment. “, “Disclosed are systems, methods and devices for presenting advertisements and content in a mobile environment.”, “Advertisements, data, messages, or entertainment are sent to the vehicle wirelessly, and exteriorly displayed at or from a rear, a side, a front or a top of the vehicle. Video content or other dynamic content is displayable when sensors indicate that the vehicle and at least one adjacent vehicle have come to a complete stop.”, “The software program or application facilitates the display of
interactive, targeted, location-based advertising, data, entertainment, messaging and/or
other content to the occupants of surrounding transportation devices wherein the location- based advertising, data, entertainment, messaging and/or other content is delivered after
analyzing input received from the surrounding area and predicting behavior of the
transportation devices, including whether the surrounding vehicles are fully stopped, and
if so, the predicted length of time that they will remain fully stopped. “ 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 2019 PEG: analyze one or more of a physical characteristic of a detected scene captured from at least one of the each of the one or more cameras, a behavior of a detected vehicle in the detected scene, and a number of occupants in the detected vehicle/ analyze the retrieved historical 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 first device as an electronic control unit / user device / One or more cameras in communication with the first device/one or more mountable second device wherein each of the one or more mountable second device includes a display device / a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable instructions thereon that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations; they represent generic computing elements and are recited at a high level of generality. The additional element of using a machine learning algorithm comprising regression or neural network to analyze/generate data (generate a predictor model, wherein the predictor model comprises a machine learning algorithm based on one or more of regression-based predictive learning or neural-network-based predictive learning trained on labeled historical stopping event data comprising tuples of vehicle speed profile, brake application profile, OPS-derived approach trajectory, traffic signal phase, and measured actual stopping duration; generate, using the predictor model, a prediction based on the analyzed physical characteristics of the detected scene and the analyzed retrieved historical data, wherein the prediction includes a predicted stopping time for the detected vehicle and an associated confidence measure) do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element of data gathering via a camera (the one or more cameras are operable to capture and transmit a scene for analysis) represents insignificant extra-solution activity – ie. Data gathering. The additional element of performing the claimed limitations within a vehicular environment (first device and the second device are located in a system transporting vehicle; the display device mounted on a surface of the system transporting vehicle;) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. 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 elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional element of data gathering via a camera (the one or more cameras are operable to capture and transmit a scene for analysis) represents insignificant extra-solution activity – ie. It represents a well known and commonly used means of data gathering, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention; Kardesler (20210350414) describes that collecting data within vehicular environments, data such as environmental and context data, is done using sensors, including “ including one or more of a particle sensor, an air pollution sensor, a humidity sensor, a microphone or noise meter, a gyroscope, a GPS, an accelerometer, a camera, a radar system, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system, or the like.” – para 123. The additional elements of using a machine learning algorithm comprising regression or neural network to analyze/generate data do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use . The additional element of performing the claimed limitations within a vehicular environment does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. 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.
Independent claims 9 and 12 are directed to a computer readable medium and device ,respectively, for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion; they recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 9, 12 perform the method of claim 1 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 9, 12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Independent claim 21 is directed to a device, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. It recites the same abstract idea as Claim 1. The additional claimed limitations of: generate an inquiry media with a response activity for display / detect whether a response has been received / if a response activity is received, select a media for delivery based on the response activity / if no response activity is received, select a generate a new inquiry with a response activity for display recite the same abstract idea of a commercial interaction – i.e. advertising/marketing activities or behaviors, business relations/sales activities, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. Claim 21 performs the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 3, 5-7, 11, 15-17, 19-20, 22-24, 26-27 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further include the additional element of data gathering via a camera (detect a presence of an adjacent vehicle/ the one or more second cameras are operable to capture and transmit a second device scene for analysis/receive an input message from a first device for display on the first device ), a second device having cameras in communication with the second device/projection system, camera/sensor/first device. Data gathering via a camera represents insignificant extra-solution activity; it represents a well known and commonly used means of gathering data, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention; Kardesler (20210350414) describes that collecting data within vehicular environments, data such as environmental and context data, is done using sensors, including “ including one or more of a particle sensor, an air pollution sensor, a humidity sensor, a microphone or noise meter, a gyroscope, a GPS, an accelerometer, a camera, a radar system, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system, or the like.” – para 123. The second device having cameras in communication with the second device/camera/sensor/projection system/first device represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, 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, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 15-17, 19-24, 26-27. The most relevant prior art of record identified, Kardesler (20210350414), teaches: a first device; one or more cameras in communication with the first device, wherein the one or more cameras are operable to capture and transmit a scene for analysis to a user device; one or more mountable second device wherein each of the one or more mountable second device includes a display device; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable instructions thereon that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations comprising analyze one or more of a physical characteristic of a detected scene captured from at least one of the each of the one or more cameras, a behavior of a detected vehicle in the detected scene from at least one of the each of the one or more cameras, and a number of occupants in the detected vehicle, retrieve an historical data based on one or more of a GPS location, a date, a day of week, a time, a vehicle type, an occupant type, and an occupant number, analyze the retrieved historical data, generate… a prediction based on the analyzed physical characteristics of the detected scene and the analyzed retrieved historical data, select a media based on the prediction, deliver the media to the display device, and display a received media on at least one of the display device, wherein the first device and the second device are located in a system transporting vehicle. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
Cabrera (20190251600) teaches a vehicle-mounted directed advertisement system and method
enables a marketing user to configure an advertisement campaign, and display the advertisement, in the
form of audio-visual digital content, from a vehicle-mounted electronic display that is driven by a driving
user, and directed towards a targeted consumer in a target geographic marketing area. However, it lacks
the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
When taken as a whole, the pending independent claims and thus their respective dependent claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
The amended claims overcome the cited prior art
The prior art rejection of the pending claims has been overcome and has been withdrawn.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 15-17, 19-24, 26-27. The most relevant prior art of record identified, Kardesler (20210350414), teaches: a first device; one or more cameras in communication with the first device, wherein the one or more cameras are operable to capture and transmit a scene for analysis to a user device; one or more mountable second device wherein each of the one or more mountable second device includes a display device; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable instructions thereon that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations comprising analyze one or more of a physical characteristic of a detected scene captured from at least one of the each of the one or more cameras, a behavior of a detected vehicle in the detected scene from at least one of the each of the one or more cameras, and a number of occupants in the detected vehicle, retrieve an historical data based on one or more of a GPS location, a date, a day of week, a time, a vehicle type, an occupant type, and an occupant number, analyze the retrieved historical data, generate… a prediction based on the analyzed physical characteristics of the detected scene and the analyzed retrieved historical data, select a media based on the prediction, deliver the media to the display device, and display a received media on at least one of the display device, wherein the first device and the second device are located in a system transporting vehicle. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
Cabrera (20190251600) teaches a vehicle-mounted directed advertisement system and method
enables a marketing user to configure an advertisement campaign, and display the advertisement, in the
form of audio-visual digital content, from a vehicle-mounted electronic display that is driven by a driving
user, and directed towards a targeted consumer in a target geographic marketing area. However, it lacks
the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
When taken as a whole, the pending independent claims and thus their respective dependent claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
The claimed ECU-implemented features-namely (i) sliding-window fusion of motion sensor data, (ii) dynamic computation of a minimum safe display interval as a function of measured speed,
deceleration, and driver reaction-time, and (iii) the safety-gating and termination/reversion
behaviors that physically control when the display device may show dynamic advertising versus
static safety indicia-are the additional elements that integrate any advertising-selection abstract
idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Moreover, these limitations define
specific control mechanisms for a vehicle-mounted display that improves safety by preventing
display of dynamic advertising content when it would be unsafe or distracting, and by reverting
to static safety indicia upon renewed motion. The ECU does not merely display ads "based on a
prediction"; it analyzes sensor data, computes a dynamic safety interval, and enforces mandatory
safety behavior of the display subsystem tied directly to vehicle dynamics.
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, performance of
sensor data analysis and computation of dynamic safety intervals constitutes integration of any
abstract idea into a practical application: The ECU-level processing uses sensor-derived speed and deceleration profiles, together
with a reaction-time parameter, to impose safety-constrained operation of a physical
display mounted on the vehicle.
• The claimed improvement is to the technical functioning of the display system in a moving
vehicle, reducing distraction and unsafe display conditions, not merely to a business or
marketing process because the ECU prevents the display from showing dynamic
advertising unless it determines from sensor-derived speed and deceleration, together with
a driver reaction-time parameter, that the vehicle will be fully stopped for at least the
minimum safe display interval, and because any renewed motion detected from the motion
data before that interval expires causes the ECU to terminate the advertising and revert to
static safety indicia as recited in the independent claims. Accordingly, even if the Examiner continues to view ad selection itself as an abstract idea, the additional ECU, sensor data, and safety-interval control features "apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception," and therefore integrate the exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Guidance. Alternatively, under Step 2B, these features represent "significantly more" than any abstract idea because they recite a particular technical solution (dynamic, sensor-based safety
gating of an vehicle display) that is not generic computer implementation or mere data gathering.
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. 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: “When driving a vehicle, there are many advertisements placed where drivers/passengers can see them, e.g., billboards, buildings, storefronts, and other locations where businesses can be identified to a driver. Many of these locations are not directly in the driver's field of view, however, and require the driver to divert his/her attention to the billboard, storefront, etc., and away from the traffic that is closest to their vehicle. What is needed is predictive advertising systems and devices, with integrated safety and privacy features, that are suitable for use in a mobile environment. “, “Disclosed are systems, methods and devices for presenting advertisements and content in a mobile environment.”, “Advertisements, data, messages, or entertainment are sent to the vehicle wirelessly, and exteriorly displayed at or from a rear, a side, a front or a top of the vehicle. Video content or other dynamic content is displayable when sensors indicate that the vehicle and at least one adjacent vehicle have come to a complete stop.”, “The software program or application facilitates the display of interactive, targeted, location-based advertising, data, entertainment, messaging and/or other content to the occupants of surrounding transportation devices wherein the location- based advertising, data, entertainment, messaging and/or other content is delivered after analyzing input received from the surrounding area and predicting behavior of the transportation devices, including whether the surrounding vehicles are fully stopped, and if so, the predicted length of time that they will remain fully stopped. “ Selecting and presenting targeted advertising content, and preventing display of dynamic advertising content when it would be unsafe or distracting 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. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec., including the paras noted by the Applicant, 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
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
2/27/2026