DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/31/26 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the RCE filed on 3/31/26.
Examiner notes that this application is the parent to PCT/US2025/014506.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-15, and 20 have been amended.
Claim 9 has been cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1-8 and 10-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter categories under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03. Specifically, claims 1-14 each recite an apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor, and thus fall within the "machine" category. Claims 15-19 each recite a method performed at a user equipment, and thus fall within the "process" category. Claim 20 recites a computer-readable medium storing computer-executable code, and thus falls within the "article of manufacture" category. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claims 1, 15, and 20, in part, describe an invention comprising: collecting spatial data about a nearby user's position or orientation relative to an advertising display; selecting a display that is closest to the user to display an ad; and providing navigation directions to a location associated with the displayed ad upon the user’s request. As such, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of providing targeted advertising and navigation assistance based on the collection and analysis of user location data, which, pursuant to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e., targeted advertising and commercial navigation services). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: outputting at least one message in a set of messages via the selected at least one display; obtaining, from the at least one target or a device associated with the at least one target, an indication to navigate the at least one target to a location associated with the at least one message; and outputting, based on the indication, a modification of the at least one message that includes navigation information to the location via the at least one display, or transmitting, based on the indication, the navigation information to the device associated with the at least one target. Dependent claims 2 and 16 further recite receiv[ing] a first input from the device associated with the at least one target, receiv[ing] a second input from one or more components associated with the at least one display, or receiv[ing] a third input based on a gesture performed by the at least one target using at least one sensor or at least one camera. Dependent claim 4 further recites transmit[ting], based on the indication, the navigation information to the device associated with the at least one target. Dependent claim 6 further recites output[ting], based on the indication, the modification of the at least one message that includes the navigation information to the location via the at least one display. Dependent claims 7 and 17 further recite pair[ing] with the device associated with the at least one target. The Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.").
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including: at least one memory; at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory; at least one of a sensor or a camera associated with the user equipment (UE); a plurality of displays; a device associated with the at least one target; and, as further recited in dependent claim 14, at least one transceiver coupled to the at least one processor. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be nothing more than generic computer and hardware components used to apply the abstract idea. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1977, 1983 (2014).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Looking at the elements individually and in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field; apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease; apply the judicial exception with a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use generic hardware components as tools to perform the abstract idea, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., a multi-display advertising vehicle). Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, and their collective functions are merely facilitated by generic computer and hardware implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified above as extra-solution activity, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Displaying/outputting content to a user. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Receiving or transmitting data over a network. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Wirelessly pairing devices. https://theauris.com/blogs/blog/the-history-of-bluetooth?srsltid=AfmBOooOaFzDOdTz50x8oi0_Pigxp2dsl76OvIyRkwghZ5Y0E20RQytt.
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception, and claims 1-8 and 10-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Additionally, claim 20 recites a "computer-readable medium" at a user equipment (UE) without the limitation "non-transitory." The "at a user equipment" language specifies the location of the medium but does not constrain its physical nature. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim therefore encompasses transitory propagating signals per se, which are not directed toward statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2111.01. To overcome this rejection, Applicant may amend claim 20 to recite a "non-transitory computer-readable medium." Such an amendment would not raise the issue of new matter.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-19 depend from the rejected independent claims and include all limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional elements sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Specifically:
Claims 2 and 16 further limit the obtaining of the indication to receiv[ing] a first input from the device associated with the at least one target, receiv[ing] a second input from one or more components associated with the at least one display, or receiv[ing] a third input based on a gesture performed by the at least one target using at least one sensor or at least one camera. As noted above, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Berkheimer, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 further limits the message to one that includes a set of gestures that can be used for interacting with the at least one message. This limitation adds further commercial detail regarding the content of the displayed message and does not constitute a meaningful limitation beyond the abstract idea.
Claim 4 further limits the response to the indication to transmit[ting], based on the indication, the navigation information to the device associated with the at least one target. As noted above, this limitation represents well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Berkheimer, and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 further limits the location to a business location and the navigation information to a set of directions to the business location. These limitations add further detail regarding the commercial nature of the navigation component of the abstract idea and do not constitute a meaningful technical limitation.
Claim 6 further limits the output step to output[ting], based on the indication, the modification of the at least one message that includes the navigation information to the location via the at least one display. As noted above, this limitation represents well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Berkheimer, and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 17 further limit the claims to additionally detect[ing] the device is associated with the at least one target and pair[ing] with the device, and obtaining inputs from the paired device to navigate the target to the location associated with the message. As noted above, the pairing limitation represents well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Berkheimer. The remaining limitations add further detail regarding data collection and generic device association operations and do not confer patent eligibility.
Claim 8 further limits device detection to estimat[ing] a first position of the at least one target using at least one of the sensor or the camera; estimat[ing] a second position of the device based on a set of radio frequency (RF) measurements; and determin[ing] that the device is associated with the at least one target based on the estimated first position of the at least one target being within a threshold distance of the second position of the device. These limitations add further detail to the data collection and analysis steps for device association and do not constitute a meaningful technical improvement beyond the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 18 further limit the claims to additionally detect[ing] a speed of the UE or a relative velocity between the UE and the at least one target and display[ing] the at least one message using a set of static images if the detected speed of the UE or the relative velocity between the UE and the at least one target is greater than a threshold. These limitations add further detail regarding the collection and processing of speed and velocity data and a conditional display mode, and do not confer patent eligibility.
Claim 11 further limits the claims to additionally disabl[ing] a set of interaction functions if the detected speed of the UE or the relative velocity between the UE and the at least one target is greater than the threshold. This limitation adds a further conditional control step that elaborates on the data processing component of the abstract idea without meaningfully limiting it.
Claims 12 and 19 further limit the claims to additionally detect[ing] a number of people within a threshold distance of the at least one target or to the UE and disabl[ing] a set of interaction functions if the detected number of people is greater than a threshold. These limitations add further data collection and conditional processing steps that do not confer patent eligibility.
Claim 13 further limits the claims to additionally disabl[ing] gesture-based interaction functions based on a set of defined criteria. This limitation adds a further conditional processing step that does not constitute a meaningful technical limitation beyond the abstract idea.
Claim 14 further limits the apparatus to include at least one transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, specifies that the indication is obtained via the transceiver, and further specifies that the set of messages comprises a set of advertisements, and the at least one message is at least one advertisement. As noted above, the transceiver is a generic hardware component recited at a high level of generality. The advertisement characterization adds further commercial detail to the abstract idea. Neither limitation confers patent eligibility.
Therefore, claims 1-8 and 10-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prozzi et al. (US 2022/0198518) in view of Gallagher et al. (US 2012/0001828) and Munisamy et al. (US 2014/0316884).
Claims 1, 15, and 20: Prozzi discloses a method, computer-readable medium, and an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Paragraphs [0015] and [0020]; FIGS. 1, 4. A vehicle-mounted advertisement display system comprising advertisement controller 165, a plurality of exterior display screens positioned on different exterior portions of the vehicle, and cameras associated with the respective display screens.), comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (Paragraph [0047]; FIG. 4. Advertisement controller 165 comprises processor 435 and memory 440.), the at least one processor configured to:
detect at least one of a relative location or a relative orientation of at least one target with respect to the UE using at least one of a sensor or a camera associated with the UE (Paragraphs [0021], [0028], [0029], [0030], [0037], [0039], and [0040]; FIGS. 1, 3. Cameras 120, 130, and 145 are each associated with a respective exterior display screen and capture images of individuals in the vicinity of the vehicle. The advertisement controller 165 evaluates the captured images to determine whether a given individual has an unobstructed view of a particular display screen — for example, determining that individual 305 is facing display screen 155, that individual 310 has an unobstructed view of display screen 160, and that individual 315 is not facing display screen 150 — thereby detecting the relative orientation of each individual with respect to the UE and its displays.); and
output at least one message in a set of messages via the selected at least one display (Paragraph [0065]; FIG. 5, block 550; FIG. 3. The advertisement controller 165 configures one or more display screens to display one or more targeted advertisements, causing the targeted advertisement to be displayed on the exterior display screen determined to face the detected individual.).
Prozzi does not appear to explicitly describe select[ing] at least one display from a plurality of displays that is closest or facing the at least one target based on at least one of the relative location or the relative orientation of the at least one target with respect to the UE.
Gallagher, however, describes select[ing] at least one display from a plurality of displays that is closest or facing the at least one target based on at least one of the relative location or the relative orientation of the at least one target with respect to the UE. (Paragraphs [0020], [0021], and [0022]; Claim 1; FIGS. 1, 2. Digital processor 150 selects a subset of displays from a set of displays based on an environment map 114 describing the locations of the displays and a human motion model 116 describing the positions and movement of viewers, where the human motion model is produced by image capture devices that detect and track people in the environment, and the processor assigns content to the displays that are closest to or facing the detected viewers.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Gallagher's processor-driven display subset selection based on viewer position and display location into Prozzi's vehicle-mounted multi-display advertising system. One would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that targeted advertisements are routed to the specific exterior display screen that the detected individual can actually see, thereby maximizing the effectiveness of Prozzi's position-aware vehicular advertising system.
Next, the Prozzi/Gallagher combination does not appear to explicitly describe obtain[ing], from the at least one target or a device associated with the at least one target, an indication to navigate the at least one target to a location associated with the at least one message; or output[ting], based on the indication, a modification of the at least one message that includes navigation information to the location via the at least one display, or transmit[ting], based on the indication, the navigation information to the device associated with the at least one target.
Munisamy, however, describes obtain[ing], from the at least one target or a device associated with the at least one target, an indication to navigate the at least one target to a location associated with the at least one message; and output[ting], based on the indication, a modification of the at least one message that includes navigation information to the location via the at least one display, or transmit[ting], based on the indication, the navigation information to the device associated with the at least one target. (Paragraphs [0023], [0024], and [0029]. The system presents an advertisement via a user interface, receives user input associated with the presented advertisement, identifies the user input as an anticipated gesture, and performs an action associated with the identified gesture, where the actions include providing navigation services such as providing directions to the geographic location of the advertiser, thereby obtaining an indication to navigate the target to a location associated with the advertisement and providing navigation information to the target based on that indication.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Prozzi/Gallagher combination to incorporate Munisamy's teaching of receiving user input directed at a displayed advertisement and performing a navigation action including providing directions to the geographic location of the advertiser. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enhance the interactive utility of the advertising system by enabling viewers to obtain navigation directions to the advertised location in response to their interaction with the displayed advertisement.
Claims 2 and 16: The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination discloses those limitations cited above. Munisamy further describes receiv[ing] a first input from the device associated with the at least one target, receiv[ing] a second input from one or more components associated with the at least one display, or receiv[ing] a third input based on a gesture performed by the at least one target using at least one sensor or at least one camera. (Paragraphs [0024] and [0029]. Munisamy discloses receiving user input associated with a presented advertisement, identifying the input as an anticipated gesture performed by the user, and performing an action based on the identified gesture.)
The rationale for combining Prozzi, Gallagher, and Munisamy is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy in view of Compton et al. (US 2022/0300941).
The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe the at least one message includes a set of gestures that can be used for interacting with the at least one message.
Compton et al., however, describes the at least one message includes a set of gestures that can be used for interacting with the at least one message. (Paragraphs [0008], [0015], [0016], and [0041]. A vehicle-mounted display system presents interactive content to external viewers, where the content includes a defined set of gestures — such as hand gestures, body movements, and touch inputs — that the viewer can use to interact with the displayed content, and the system recognizes the gestures to perform associated actions.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Compton et al.'s teaching of including a defined set of interactive gestures within the displayed message into the Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide external viewers with clear guidance on how to interact with the displayed advertisement, thereby increasing viewer engagement and reducing failed interaction attempts.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy in view of Prakah-Asante et al. (US 2014/0257989).
Claim 4: The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination does not appear to explicitly describe transmit[ting], based on the indication, the navigation information to the device associated with the at least one target.
Prakah-Asante, however, describes transmit[ting], based on the indication, the navigation information to the device associated with the at least one target. (Paragraphs [0051] and [0057]; FIG. 3, step 310. In response to an occupant's interaction with a presented advertisement, directions to the advertising merchant can be provided; the ad player outputs advertisements and related information to output devices including a wireless device communicating with the VCS using Bluetooth technology and a smart phone via a message, thereby transmitting navigation information to the device associated with the target.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Prakah-Asante's teaching of wirelessly transmitting navigation directions to the device associated with the target into the Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the target to conveniently receive navigation information to the advertiser's location on their personal device, thereby increasing the practical utility and commercial effectiveness of the advertising system.
Claim 5: The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination does not appear to explicitly describe the location corresponds to a business location, and the navigation information corresponds to a set of directions to the business location.
Prakah-Asante, however, describes the location corresponds to a business location, and the navigation information corresponds to a set of directions to the business location. (Paragraphs [0033] and [0051]. Advertisements are provided and related to local businesses within a fixed perimeter from or reasonably proximate to a local route, and in response to an occupant's interaction with a presented advertisement, directions to the advertising merchant's business location can be provided.)
The rationale for combining Prozzi, Gallagher, Munisamy, and Prakah-Asante is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 7 and 17: The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination does not appear to explicitly describe detect[ing] the device is associated with the at least one target; pair[ing] with the device; and obtain[ing], from the paired device, a set of inputs to navigate the at least one target to the location associated with the at least one message.
Prakah-Asante, however, describes detect[ing] the device is associated with the at least one target; pair[ing] with the device; and obtain[ing], from the paired device, a set of inputs to navigate the at least one target to the location associated with the at least one message. (Paragraphs [0020], [0022], [0047], and [0051]; FIG. 1. The system uses Bluetooth transceiver 15 to communicate with a user's nomadic device 53; pairing the nomadic device 53 and the Bluetooth transceiver 15 is instructed through a button 52; the system determines which occupant has entered the vehicle using the occupant's paired wireless device; and the occupant interacts with the presented advertisement to request directions to the advertising merchant, thereby obtaining inputs from the paired device to navigate the target to the location associated with the advertisement.)
The rationale for combining Prozzi, Gallagher, Munisamy, and Prakah-Asante is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 14: The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination does not appear to explicitly describe at least one transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, wherein to obtain the indication, the at least one processor is configured to obtain the indication via the at least one transceiver, wherein the set of messages comprises a set of advertisements, and wherein the at least one message is at least one advertisement.
Prakah-Asante, however, describes at least one transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, wherein to obtain the indication, the at least one processor is configured to obtain the indication via the at least one transceiver. (Paragraphs [0018] and [0020]; FIG. 1. Bluetooth input 15 is coupled to processor 3, and the system uses Bluetooth transceiver 15 to communicate with and receive input from the user's nomadic device 53.) Prakah-Asante further describes the set of messages comprises a set of advertisements, and the at least one message is at least one advertisement. (Paragraphs [0043] and [0046]; FIG. 2. The system integrates advertisement player unit 204, and ad server 216 provides personalized advertisements for delivery to the vehicle occupant.)
The rationale for combining Prozzi, Gallagher, Munisamy, and Prakah-Asante is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy in view of Abuelsaad et al. (US 2015/0058127).
The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe output[ting], based on the indication, the modification of the at least one message that includes the navigation information to the location via the at least one display.
Abuelsaad, however, describes output[ting], based on the indication, the modification of the at least one message that includes the navigation information to the location via the at least one display. (Paragraphs [0035] and [0038]; FIGS. 1a, 4, 5. The display device controller 26 selects advertisements associated with locations relevant to the audience and displays the selected advertisements together with distance and direction information on the display device 12 of the advertisement slot, such as displaying "John's Lobster Shack — 2.0 Miles Ahead," thereby outputting a modification of the advertisement message that includes navigation information to the associated location via the display.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Abuelsaad's teaching of displaying distance and direction information to the advertised location on the vehicle's display as part of the advertisement output into the Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination, in combination with Munisamy's teaching in the base combination that user input directed at a displayed advertisement triggers a navigation-related action. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide viewers with immediately actionable navigation information directly on the display they are viewing, enhancing the effectiveness of the advertisement by presenting location assistance in the same visual medium as the advertisement itself.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy/Prakah-Asante in view of Kothari et al. (US 2019/0182790).
The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy/Prakah-Asante combination discloses those limitations cited above. Prozzi further describes estimat[ing] a first position of the at least one target using at least one of the sensor or the camera. (Paragraphs [0021], [0037], [0039], and [0040]; FIGS. 1, 3. Cameras 120, 130, and 145 capture images of individuals and evaluate their positions relative to the vehicle's display screens.)
The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy/Prakah-Asante combination does not appear to explicitly describe estimat[ing] a second position of the device based on a set of radio frequency (RF) measurements or determin[ing] that the device is associated with the at least one target based on the estimated first position of the at least one target being within a threshold distance of the second position of the device.
Kothari et al., however, describes estimat[ing] a second position of the device based on a set of radio frequency (RF) measurements and determin[ing] that the device is associated with the at least one target based on the estimated first position of the at least one target being within a threshold distance of the second position of the device. (Paragraphs [0021], [0030], [0035], and [0036]; FIGS. 1, 5. Wireless access points receive RSSI broadcast signals from a device and determine a first position area of the device using RSSI multilateration; the camera's machine vision then detects the target — which "can be comprised of at least one of the device or a person associated with the device" (Claim 1) — within that RF-estimated position area; the system associates the device with the detected target based on the target's camera-estimated position falling within the device's RF-estimated multilateration zone, as illustrated in FIG. 5, where phone 514 is associated with target 516 because target 516 is detected by camera within multilateration zone 520 containing the phone's RF signature, and the system determines that target 516 is carrying phone 514 despite the phone not being visually detected by machine vision.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kothari et al.'s combined RF multilateration and camera-based positioning technique for associating a detected device with a detected target based on spatial co-location into the Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy/Prakah-Asante combination. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a reliable mechanism for confirming that a detected device belongs to the detected target individual by verifying that the device's RF-estimated position area and the target's camera-estimated position overlap within the same bounded zone, thereby reducing erroneous device-to-target associations in environments where multiple devices may be in proximity.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy in view of Dawes et al. (US 2020/0380934).
The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe detect[ing] a speed of the UE or a relative velocity between the UE and the at least one target, wherein to output, via the at least one display associated with the UE, the at least one message, the at least one processor is configured to: display the at least one message using a set of static images if the detected speed of the UE or the relative velocity between the UE and the at least one target is greater than a threshold.
Dawes, however, describes detect[ing] a speed of the UE or a relative velocity between the UE and the at least one target and display[ing] the at least one message using a set of static images if the detected speed of the UE or the relative velocity between the UE and the at least one target is greater than a threshold. (Paragraphs [0015] and [0021]; FIG. 6, steps 604, 606, and 610. Radar devices embedded within sensor devices determine the speed of vehicles relative to the advertisement display; the advertisement personalization system determines whether the relative motion is above a speed threshold and, if so, selects a still image advertisement format rather than video, because audiences in vehicles moving much faster than advertisements may be able to see only a small number of video frames and a still image better facilitates communication of the advertisement content to the moving audience.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dawes's teaching of detecting relative speed between the UE and the target and displaying a still image when the relative speed exceeds a threshold into the Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the legibility and effectiveness of the advertisement content displayed on the vehicle's exterior display screens by presenting static image content to fast-moving targets who would otherwise be unable to adequately perceive a video advertisement.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy/Dawes in view of High et al. (US 2017/0132663).
The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy/Dawes combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe disabl[ing] a set of interaction functions if the detected speed of the UE or the relative velocity between the UE and the at least one target is greater than the threshold.
High, however, describes disabl[ing] a set of interaction functions if the detected speed of the UE or the relative velocity between the UE and the at least one target is greater than the threshold. (Paragraph [0032]. The mobile billboard imposes a speed restriction that only allows certain user interactions from users travelling less than a particular rate of speed, thereby disabling interaction functions when the speed exceeds the threshold.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate High's teaching of disabling user interaction functions at speeds above a threshold into the Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy/Dawes combination. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent unsafe or ineffective interaction attempts from fast-moving targets who, having already triggered the static image display mode, would be poorly positioned to meaningfully engage with interactive advertisement features.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy in view of Miyachi et al. (US 11,336,789).
The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe detect[ing] a number of people within a threshold distance of the at least one target or to the UE and disabl[ing] a set of interaction functions if the detected number of people is greater than a threshold.
Miyachi et al., however, describes detect[ing] a number of people within a threshold distance of the at least one target or to the UE and disabl[ing] a set of interaction functions if the detected number of people is greater than a threshold. (Claim 1; FIG. 4, blocks 408–412; col. 2, lines 15–24; col. 3, lines 40–50; col. 4, lines 38–44. A video camera captures images of the device and a desired amount of space around the device in accordance with a policy, where the field of view of the camera is set to a desired distance such as six feet; an object detection model detects persons within the camera's policy-defined field of view and draws bounding boxes around each detected person; the processor determines a number of the bounding boxes, compares the number to a threshold in a user limit policy associated with the device — where the threshold may be one person, three people, or the like — and deactivates the device when the number of detected persons exceeds the policy threshold.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Miyachi et al.'s teaching of detecting persons within a policy-defined threshold distance of the device and deactivating the device when the number of detected persons exceeds a policy threshold into the Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent the interactive advertising system from being overwhelmed by excessive simultaneous interactions from multiple closely-positioned targets, thereby ensuring orderly and reliable system operation and reducing safety concerns in environments where crowd density may interfere with the effectiveness of the advertising display.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy in view of Perea-Ochoa et al. (US 2023/0152961).
The Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe disabl[ing] gesture-based interaction functions based on a set of defined criteria.
Perea-Ochoa, however, describes disabl[ing] gesture-based interaction functions based on a set of defined criteria. (Paragraph [0132]. Gesture operations are locked on a device based on defined criteria, thereby disabling gesture-based interaction functions when the defined criteria are met.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Perea-Ochoa's gesture disabling functionality into the Prozzi/Gallagher/Munisamy combination. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent inadvertent or erroneous gesture-based input from triggering unintended advertisement interactions.
Other Prior Art
Though not cited in the above rejections, the following references are nevertheless relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Bird et al. (11842369), directed to a mobile advertising system.
Hargrove et al. (20160063559), directed to a method for mobile linking to advertising content.
Bird et al. (202150104116), directed to a mobile advertisement reporting system.
Isgar et al. (20230298070), directed to a route advertisement and entertainment system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the claims under 35 USC 101 are unpersuasive.
First, Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because it recites a particular machine-implemented technique performed by a UE having multiple displays, and that the display selection step is "a concrete, device-level control operation that governs which physical display hardware of the UE is activated based on real-world spatial sensing," not a mental process or a business rule. Applicant further argues that the Examiner's characterization of the claim as merely "observing a target's position and deciding which display to use and what message to show" oversimplifies the actual claim language and ignores the UE's automatic spatial detection and multi-display control. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The judicial exception analysis at Step 2A, Prong One focuses on the specific limitations that recite the exception, not on the claim as a whole. The core sequence recited in the amended claims — detecting a target's spatial relationship to the UE, selecting a display based on that spatial relationship, outputting a targeted message via the selected display, obtaining an indication to navigate the target to a location associated with the message, and outputting navigation information or transmitting it to the target's device — collectively describe the abstract concept of using detected position data to direct targeted advertising to a nearby user and to provide navigation directions to an advertiser's location upon request. This is a method of organizing human activity — specifically, targeted advertising and commercial navigation services — pursuant to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). That the display selection step involves spatial data does not remove it from the abstract idea; it describes how the advertising is targeted, which is part of the abstract commercial concept, not a separate technical operation. The claim does not cease to be directed to an abstract idea merely because it specifies the manner in which the advertising delivery decision is made.
Next, Applicant argues that even if some aspects of claim 1 are viewed as involving an abstract idea, the claim integrates the alleged exception into a practical application because it is tied to a specific physical environment and a specific technological implementation: a UE with a plurality of displays, at least one sensor or camera, and at least one processor that uses detected relative location/orientation data to determine which display is physically closest to or facing the target and routes output through that selected display. Applicant characterizes this as "a spatially-aware output-control technique for a multi-display UE" rather than the mere presentation of information on a generic screen. Applicant further argues that the later-recited steps — obtaining a navigation indication and outputting a modified message or transmitting navigation information — are not mere post-solution activity because they define how the UE processes sensed inputs and controls downstream outputs within the claimed hardware environment. Applicant additionally submits that the Advisory Action's characterization of the display selection as merely "conditional routing of information output" is too generalized and fails to account for the specific claimed feature that the display selection is driven by sensed relative location/orientation of a target with respect to the UE and is performed among a plurality of UE displays. Applicant also argues that the sensors, camera, and displays are not merely used in their ordinary capacity to collect data and present information, but instead that the amended claim recites a particular coordination of UE components constituting a specific operational workflow for a multi-display UE. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The display selection step uses sensor-derived spatial data to route content output to whichever of the UE's displays faces the target. While this involves hardware, the purpose of the selection is to improve the effectiveness of the targeted advertising — a commercial goal, not a technical one. The sensors sense position (their conventional function), the processor routes output to the selected display (a standard data-routing decision), and the selected display presents the advertisement (its conventional function). The claim does not describe an improvement to any component of the UE: the sensors are not improved, the displays are not improved, and no new method of processing sensor data is claimed. The goal served by the display selection is purely commercial — ensuring the target user can see the advertisement — not a technical improvement to any underlying technology. The display selection step uses technology as a tool to accomplish the abstract commercial function; it does not improve the technology itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014).
With respect to Applicant's argument that the later-recited steps are not post-solution activity, the Examiner notes that the steps of obtaining a navigation indication and outputting modified content or transmitting navigation information describe the continuation of the abstract commercial interaction — the user requests directions and the system provides them. These steps define what the UE does in commercial terms (respond to a navigation request with navigation information), not how the UE achieves a technical improvement. They remain part of the abstract idea of targeted advertising with navigation assistance, and do not impose a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
With respect to Applicant's argument that the sensors, camera, and displays are not used in their ordinary capacity, the Examiner maintains that the claimed coordination of components — sense position, select a display, output a message, receive an indication, transmit information — describes each component performing its standard function in sequence. That these components operate in a coordinated workflow does not transform their use from conventional to unconventional; any multi-component system operates in a coordinated workflow. The relevant inquiry is whether any component or the combination of components is used in a non-conventional manner that improves a technical capability, and here it is not. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology; apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article; or apply the judicial exception with a particular machine integral to the claimed process beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Next, Applicant argues that even if the Office continues to maintain that claim 1 recites an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites significantly more under Step 2B because the ordered combination of limitations defines a specific technological implementation rather than the mere use of generic computer components as tools. Specifically, Applicant submits that the ordered combination — in which sensor/camera-derived spatial information is used to select one display from a plurality of displays, the selected display is then used for message output, and a subsequent navigation indication triggers either modification of the displayed message or transmission of navigation information — imposes concrete technological constraints on how the UE operates, and constitutes "a specific multi-display control architecture responsive to spatial sensing and subsequent interaction input," not merely "receive data, analyze data, and display a result." Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The ordered combination — sensing position, routing output to a selected display, presenting an advertisement, receiving a navigation indication, and outputting or transmitting navigation information — does not produce a technical improvement beyond the conventional use of each component in its ordinary capacity. The sequence implements the abstract targeted advertising and navigation concept using generic hardware, and looking at the elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. That the ordered combination can be described as an "architecture" does not transform it into something significantly more; the question is whether the combination achieves a technical effect beyond what each component individually contributes, and here it does not. Claims that amount to nothing more than instructions to apply an abstract idea using generic computer components do not render the abstract idea patent-eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Finally, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejections cited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights