DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 5 and 8 are canceled.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are currently amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-20 are currently pending and examined below.
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 1-4, 6-7, and 9-20 is/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 nature phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A marketplace server comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive advertisement sale information including personal information, advertisement area information, and advertisement use information from a user device that displays advertisements, the advertisement sale information representing an offer to display a plurality of advertisements on the user device on an indicated advertisement space, the advertisement area information including an advertisement area set by a user of the user device on a screen of the user device, and the advertisement user information including an advertisement posting period and a posting cost in the advertisement area;
a database configured to store the advertisement sale information; and
a controller configured to:
receive an advertisement purchase request for the advertisement sale information from an advertisement buyer based on the advertisement sale information through an advertiser service server, the advertisement purchase request representing an acceptance of the advertisement sale information to display the plurality of advertisements on the user device on the indicated advertisement space, and
transmit advertisement purchase confirmation information including a user reward to the user device according to the received advertisement purchase request, and
transmit a control signal to an advertisement distribution platform server to transmit an advertisement corresponding to the advertisement area information and the advertisement use information to the user device.
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing is related to commerce and economy. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations). The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) outlined above are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment). The courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-9 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities).
Claim 2 recites the additional elements “wherein the controller is further configured to”, “from the advertiser service server,” and “devices”. Claim 3 recites the additional elements “wherein the controller is further configured to” and “advertiser service server.” Claim 4 recites the additional element “wherein the controller is further configured to.” Claim 6 recites the additional elements “wherein the user device and the marketplace server are connected through a blockchain network, wherein the marketplace server and the advertiser server are connected through the blockchain network, and wherein the controller is further configured to,” “automatically”, “device”, and “though a smart contract.” Claim 7 “wherein the controller is further configured to”, a human non-fungible token (NFT),” and “from the user device.” Claim 8 recites the additional element “of the user device on a screen of the user device.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 9 does not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 9 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 10 recites (additional elements underlined):
A mobile terminal comprising:
a display;
a communication interface configured to communicate with a marketplace server; and
a processor configured to:
display an advertisement service screen with advertisement sale information including personal information of a user using the mobile terminal, advertisement area information including an advertisement area set by a user of the mobile terminal and indicating an advertisement space on the mobile terminal that displays an advertisement, and advertisement use information indicating an advertisement duration and a reward cost to the user for viewing the advertisement, the advertisement sale information representing an offer to display a plurality of advertisements on the display on an indicated advertisement space,
transmit, via the communication interface, the advertisement sale information to the marketplace server including the personal information, advertisement area information, and advertisement use information input in the displayed advertisement service screen,
receive a targeted advertisement from an advertisement distribution platform server purchased by an advertisement buyer based on the transmitted advertisement sale information,
display, via the display, the received targeted advertisement on the indicated advertisement space of the mobile terminal identified in the advertisement area information, and
receive advertisement purchase confirmation information including a user reward for viewing the received targeted advertisement.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 10 also recite an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 11-19 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 10 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities).
Claim 11 recites the additional elements “on the mobile terminal that displays” and “on the display.” Claim 12 recites the additional element “screen.” Claim 13 recites the additional elements “on the mobile terminal that displays,” “an always-on-display, a home screen display, or another display screen different than the always-on-display screen and the home screen display.” Claim 14 recites the additional elements “screen,” “the processor is further configured to: display an initial screen on the display according to execution of an advertisement service application on the mobile terminal, wherein the advertisement service application,” “on the mobile terminal,” after the initial screen is displayed,” and “using the mobile terminal.” Claim 15 recites the additional elements “screen” and “the processor is further configured to,” “screen including an always-on-display screen,” “on the always-on-display screen of the mobile terminal,” “screen,” “screen of the mobile terminal,” “a smart board screen,” “on a smart board screen of the mobile terminal,” “an additional display,” “on an additional display of the mobile terminal,” “a widget screen,” and “widget screen of the mobile terminal.” Claim 16 recites the additional elements “screen,” “GPS,” and “the marketplace server configured to.” Claim 17 recites the additional elements “wherein the processor is configured to,” “screen,” “an always-on-display screen,” and “screen.” Claim 18 recites the additional elements “a banner type, a notification type, and a VOD type.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 19 does not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 10, claim 19 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 20 recites (additional elements underlined):
A method of operating a marketplace server, the method comprising:
receiving, via the marketplace server, advertisement sale information including personal information, advertisement area information, and advertisement use information input by a user from a user device that displays advertisements, the advertisement sale information representing an offer to display a plurality of advertisements on the user device on an indicated advertisement space;
storing the advertisement sale information in a memory associated with the marketplace server;
receiving, via the marketplace server, an advertisement purchase request for a targeted advertisement for the advertisement sale information from an advertiser service server, the advertisement purchase request representing an acceptance of the advertisement sale information to display the plurality of advertisements on the user device on the indicated advertisement space; and
transmitting, via the marketplace server, advertisement purchase confirmation information including a compensation to the user device according to the received advertisement purchase request.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 20 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 2013/0282452 A1, hereinafter “He”) in view of Whitman (US 2018/0197212 A1, hereinafter “Whitman”).
As per Claim 1, He teaches … advertisement sale information including personal information, advertisement area information, and advertisement use information from a user device that displays advertisements, the advertisement sale information representing an offer to display a plurality of advertisements on the user device on an indicated advertisement space, the advertisement area information including an advertisement area set by a user of the user device on a screen of the user device, and the advertisement use information including an advertisement posting period and a posting cost in the advertisement area (¶ 9 “The present invention provides a method, system and program product for the owners (also known as "subscribers") of communication devices such as smart TVs, computers, notebooks, mobile phones and tablets, to auction, rent or lease parts or all of their device display screens where advertisers can bid to display advertisements directly or through advertising providers. The device display screen auction, rental or lease can be based on timeslot such as a number of seconds, minutes, hours and days [i.e., posting period]. The advertisement revenues on device display screens of communication devices are shared among subscribers, advertising providers and related third party partners based on contracts or agreements [i.e., transmitting reward to user based on advertisement purchase request].” ¶ 10 “For example, a subscriber wishes to get paid for advertisement display on his mobile phone and decides to auction spaces of his mobile phone home screen for four advertisements at a time [i.e., advertisement sale information including advertisement area information and posting period]. In order to achieve his goal, the subscriber configures his mobile phone home screen logically into four equal sections: Section-A, Section-B, Section-C and Section-D. Each section will be auctioned to host one advertisement. Section-A and Section-B have ask-price $1.00/day and $2.00/day respectively, while Section-C and Section-D have ask-price $0.10/hour and $0.20/hour respectively [i.e., advertisement sale information including a posting cost in the advertisement area]. On the other hand, an advertiser has four advertisements ready for display service: advertisement-A and advertisement-B with bid-price $1.00/day and $2.00/day respectively, while advertisement-C and advertisement-D with bid-price $0.10/hour and $0.20/hour respectively. In such scenario, advertisement-A is a candidate for Section-A but not for Section-B, Section-C and Section-D; advertisement-B is a candidate for Section-A and Section-B but not for Section-C and Section-D; advertisement-C is a candidate for Section-C but not for Section-A, Section-B and Section-D; advertisement-D is a candidate for Section-C and Section-D but not for Section-A and Section-B.” ¶ 11 “In addition, subscribers may define selection criteria such as countries, languages, categories, personal interests, device locations and other meta-data to filter out advertisements for displays on their devices [i.e., advertisement sale information including personal information]. Continue with the above example. Assume Section-A and Section-D allow advertisements in finance category, while Section-B and Section-C allow advertisements in health category. Also assume advertisement-A, advertisement-B, advertisement-C, and advertisement-D belong to category finance, finance, health, and health respectively. Then advertisement-A and advertisement-B can be candidates only for Section-A, while advertisement-C and advertisement-D can be candidates only for Section-C. Since advertisements with higher bid win, advertisement-B will be hosted on Section-A, while advertisement-D will be hosted on Section-C. Assume there are no other advertisements. Then both Section-B and Section-D will not host any advertisement. Assume the mobile phone is on for the whole day, then one-day revenue is $2.00+24.times.$0.20=$6.80, and will be shared by the subscriber and others.” Also see Abstract, Figs. 2-3, and Claims 1-4.);
a database configured to store the advertisement sale information (¶¶ 9-11 and 25. Also see claims 1-4 and Figs. 2-3); and
a controller configured to (¶ 16 and Fig. 3. Also see at least ¶¶ 9-11, claims 1-4, and Fig. 2):
… the advertisement sale information from an advertisement buyer based on the advertisement sale information through an advertiser service server, … the advertisement sale information to display the plurality of advertisements on the user device on the indicated advertisement space (¶¶ 9-11 and 25. Also see claims 1-4 and Figs. 2-3), and
…information including a user reward to the user device according to the received advertisement …(¶¶ 9-11 and 25. Also see claims 1-4 and Figs. 2-3), and
transmit a control signal to an advertisement distribution platform server to transmit an advertisement corresponding to the advertisement area information and the advertisement use information to the user device (Claim 1. Also see at least ¶¶ 9-11, claims 2-4, and Figs. 2-3).
While He teaches all of the above limitations, He does not appear to explicitly teach A marketplace server comprising: a communication interface configured to receive [advertisement sale information]; receive an advertisement purchase request for [the advertisement sale information from an advertisement buyer]; the advertisement purchase request representing an acceptance of [of the advertisement sale information]; transmit advertisement purchase confirmation; and [received advertisement] purchase request.
However, Whitman teaches A marketplace server comprising (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5):
a communication interface configured to receive [advertisement sale information] (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5);
receive an advertisement purchase request for [the advertisement sale information from an advertisement buyer] (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5);
the advertisement purchase request representing an acceptance of [of the advertisement sale information] (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, 44, 46, 48-50, and claims 1-5);
transmit advertisement purchase confirmation (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5); and
[received advertisement] purchase request (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Whitman, into He. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to allow potential advertisers to have access to a marketplace for ad space (Whitman, ¶ 37), thereby allowing an advertiser to identify an ad space before committing to an ad campaign in that ad space (Whitman, ¶ 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of displaying advertisements in premium fixed positions, thereby increasing the likelihood that the user will see and engage with the advertisement. The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 20, He teaches A method of operating a … server, the method comprising (¶ 9. Also see ¶¶ 10-11):
… advertisement sale information including personal information, advertisement area information, and advertisement use information input by a user from a user device that displays advertisements, the advertisement sale information representing an offer to display a plurality of advertisements on the user device on an indicated advertisement space (¶ 9 “The present invention provides a method, system and program product for the owners (also known as "subscribers") of communication devices such as smart TVs, computers, notebooks, mobile phones and tablets, to auction, rent or lease parts or all of their device display screens where advertisers can bid to display advertisements directly or through advertising providers. The device display screen auction, rental or lease can be based on timeslot such as a number of seconds, minutes, hours and days [i.e., posting period]. The advertisement revenues on device display screens of communication devices are shared among subscribers, advertising providers and related third party partners based on contracts or agreements [i.e., transmitting reward to user based on advertisement purchase request].” ¶ 10 “For example, a subscriber wishes to get paid for advertisement display on his mobile phone and decides to auction spaces of his mobile phone home screen for four advertisements at a time [i.e., advertisement sale information including advertisement area information and posting period]. In order to achieve his goal, the subscriber configures his mobile phone home screen logically into four equal sections: Section-A, Section-B, Section-C and Section-D. Each section will be auctioned to host one advertisement. Section-A and Section-B have ask-price $1.00/day and $2.00/day respectively, while Section-C and Section-D have ask-price $0.10/hour and $0.20/hour respectively [i.e., advertisement sale information including a posting cost in the advertisement area]. On the other hand, an advertiser has four advertisements ready for display service: advertisement-A and advertisement-B with bid-price $1.00/day and $2.00/day respectively, while advertisement-C and advertisement-D with bid-price $0.10/hour and $0.20/hour respectively. In such scenario, advertisement-A is a candidate for Section-A but not for Section-B, Section-C and Section-D; advertisement-B is a candidate for Section-A and Section-B but not for Section-C and Section-D; advertisement-C is a candidate for Section-C but not for Section-A, Section-B and Section-D; advertisement-D is a candidate for Section-C and Section-D but not for Section-A and Section-B.” ¶ 11 “In addition, subscribers may define selection criteria such as countries, languages, categories, personal interests, device locations and other meta-data to filter out advertisements for displays on their devices [i.e., advertisement sale information including personal information]. Continue with the above example. Assume Section-A and Section-D allow advertisements in finance category, while Section-B and Section-C allow advertisements in health category. Also assume advertisement-A, advertisement-B, advertisement-C, and advertisement-D belong to category finance, finance, health, and health respectively. Then advertisement-A and advertisement-B can be candidates only for Section-A, while advertisement-C and advertisement-D can be candidates only for Section-C. Since advertisements with higher bid win, advertisement-B will be hosted on Section-A, while advertisement-D will be hosted on Section-C. Assume there are no other advertisements. Then both Section-B and Section-D will not host any advertisement. Assume the mobile phone is on for the whole day, then one-day revenue is $2.00+24.times.$0.20=$6.80, and will be shared by the subscriber and others.” Also see Abstract, Figs. 2-3, and Claims 1-4.);
storing the advertisement sale information in a memory associated with the … server (¶¶ 9-11 and 25. Also see claims 1-4 and Figs. 2-3);
… the advertisement sale information from an advertiser service server … the advertisement sale information to display the plurality of advertisements on the user device on the indicated advertisement space (¶¶ 9-11 and 25. Also see claims 1-4 and Figs. 2-3); and
… information including a compensation to the user device according to … (¶¶ 9-11 and 25. Also see claims 1-4 and Figs. 2-3).
While He teaches all of the above limitations, He does not appear to explicitly teach marketplace [server]; receiving, via the marketplace server [advertisement sale information]; [storing in the] marketplace [server]; receiving, via the marketplace server, an advertisement purchase request for a targeted advertisement for; the advertisement purchase request representing an acceptance of [the offer]; transmitting, via the marketplace server, advertisement purchase confirmation; and the received advertisement purchase request.
However, Whitman teaches marketplace [server] (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5);
receiving, via the marketplace server [advertisement sale information] (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5);
[storing in the] marketplace [server] (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5);
receiving, via the marketplace server, an advertisement purchase request for a targeted advertisement for (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, 44, 46, 48-50, and claims 1-5);
the advertisement purchase request representing an acceptance of [the offer] (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, 44, 46, 48-50, and claims 1-5);
transmitting, via the marketplace server, advertisement purchase confirmation (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5); and
the received advertisement purchase request (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Whitman, into He. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to allow potential advertisers to have access to a marketplace for ad space (Whitman, ¶ 37), thereby allowing an advertiser to identify an ad space before committing to an ad campaign in that ad space (Whitman, ¶ 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of displaying advertisements in premium fixed positions, thereby increasing the likelihood that the user will see and engage with the advertisement. The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Whitman, in further view of Tumen et al. (US 2016/0078490 A1, hereinafter “Tumen”).
As per Claim 2, He teaches wherein the controller is further configured to (¶ 16 and Fig. 3. Also see at least ¶¶ 9-11, claims 1-4, and Fig. 2).
The combination of He/Whitman do not appear to explicitly teach receive advertisement purchase information from the advertiser service server, compare the received advertisement purchase information with a set of advertisement sale information corresponding to a plurality of user devices, and obtain a user list including a plurality of user items matched with the advertisement purchase information according to a comparison result.
However, Tumen teaches receive advertisement purchase information from the advertiser service server (¶¶ 55, 63, 94-97, and 107. Also see Fig. 4A),
compare the received advertisement purchase information with a set of advertisement sale information corresponding to a plurality of user devices (¶¶ 8-10, 55, 63, 94-97, and 107. Also see Fig. 4A), and
obtain a user list including a plurality of user items matched with the advertisement purchase information according to a comparison result (¶¶ 97-103).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Tumen, into the combination of He/Whitman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to in order to identify preferences of users so that advertisements are more targeted to user preferences, thereby improving a user’s experience (Tumen, ¶ 33). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 3, He teaches wherein the controller is further configured to (¶ 16 and Fig. 3. Also see at least ¶¶ 9-11, claims 1-4, and Fig. 2).
The combination of He/Whitman do not appear to explicitly teach transmit the user list to the advertiser service server, and receive the advertisement purchase request including a user item that the advertiser service server wants to purchase among the plurality of user items from the advertiser service server.
However, Tumen teaches transmit the user list to the advertiser service server (¶¶ 97-103), and
receive the advertisement purchase request including a user item that the advertiser service server wants to purchase among the plurality of user items from the advertiser service server (¶¶ 97-103).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Tumen, into the combination of He/Whitman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable consumers to earn money from sharing user data (Tumen, ¶ 98). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to in order to identify preferences of users so that advertisements are more targeted to user preferences, thereby improving a user’s experience (Tumen, ¶ 33). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 4, He teaches wherein the controller is further configured to (¶ 16 and Fig. 3. Also see at least ¶¶ 9-11, claims 1-4, and Fig. 2).
The combination of He/Whitman do not appear to explicitly teach extract the user list matched with the advertisement purchase information from the advertisement sale information set.
However, Tumen teaches extract the user list matched with the advertisement purchase information from the advertisement sale information set (¶¶ 97-103).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Tumen, into the combination of He/Whitman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable consumers to earn money from sharing user data (Tumen, ¶ 98). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to in order to identify preferences of users so that advertisements are more targeted to user preferences, thereby improving a user’s experience (Tumen, ¶ 33). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 10, He teaches A mobile terminal comprising (¶¶ 9-11, 17, and 20-21; see also Figs. 1-3):
a display (¶¶ 9-11, 17, and 20-21. Also see Figs. 1-3);
a processor configured to (¶¶ 9-11, 17, and 20-21. Also see Figs. 1-3):
… advertisement sale information including personal information of a user using the mobile terminal, advertisement area information including an advertisement area set by a user of the mobile terminal and indicating an advertisement space on the mobile terminal that displays an advertisement, and advertisement use information indicating an advertisement duration and a reward cost to the user …, the advertisement sale information representing an offer to display a plurality of advertisements on the display on an indicated advertisement space (¶ 9 “The present invention provides a method, system and program product for the owners (also known as "subscribers") of communication devices such as smart TVs, computers, notebooks, mobile phones and tablets, to auction, rent or lease parts or all of their device display screens where advertisers can bid to display advertisements directly or through advertising providers. The device display screen auction, rental or lease can be based on timeslot such as a number of seconds, minutes, hours and days [i.e., posting period]. The advertisement revenues on device display screens of communication devices are shared among subscribers, advertising providers and related third party partners based on contracts or agreements [i.e., transmitting reward to user based on advertisement purchase request].” ¶ 10 “For example, a subscriber wishes to get paid for advertisement display on his mobile phone and decides to auction spaces of his mobile phone home screen for four advertisements at a time [i.e., advertisement sale information including advertisement area information and posting period]. In order to achieve his goal, the subscriber configures his mobile phone home screen logically into four equal sections: Section-A, Section-B, Section-C and Section-D. Each section will be auctioned to host one advertisement. Section-A and Section-B have ask-price $1.00/day and $2.00/day respectively, while Section-C and Section-D have ask-price $0.10/hour and $0.20/hour respectively [i.e., advertisement sale information including a posting cost in the advertisement area]. On the other hand, an advertiser has four advertisements ready for display service: advertisement-A and advertisement-B with bid-price $1.00/day and $2.00/day respectively, while advertisement-C and advertisement-D with bid-price $0.10/hour and $0.20/hour respectively. In such scenario, advertisement-A is a candidate for Section-A but not for Section-B, Section-C and Section-D; advertisement-B is a candidate for Section-A and Section-B but not for Section-C and Section-D; advertisement-C is a candidate for Section-C but not for Section-A, Section-B and Section-D; advertisement-D is a candidate for Section-C and Section-D but not for Section-A and Section-B.” ¶ 11 “In addition, subscribers may define selection criteria such as countries, languages, categories, personal interests, device locations and other meta-data to filter out advertisements for displays on their devices [i.e., advertisement sale information including personal information]. Continue with the above example. Assume Section-A and Section-D allow advertisements in finance category, while Section-B and Section-C allow advertisements in health category. Also assume advertisement-A, advertisement-B, advertisement-C, and advertisement-D belong to category finance, finance, health, and health respectively. Then advertisement-A and advertisement-B can be candidates only for Section-A, while advertisement-C and advertisement-D can be candidates only for Section-C. Since advertisements with higher bid win, advertisement-B will be hosted on Section-A, while advertisement-D will be hosted on Section-C. Assume there are no other advertisements. Then both Section-B and Section-D will not host any advertisement. Assume the mobile phone is on for the whole day, then one-day revenue is $2.00+24.times.$0.20=$6.80, and will be shared by the subscriber and others.” Also see Abstract, Figs. 2-3, and Claims 1-4.),
… the advertisement sale information … including the personal information, advertisement area information, and advertisement use information input … (¶¶ 9-11 and 25. Also see claims 1-4 and Figs. 2-3),
receive a targeted advertisement from an advertisement distribution platform server purchased by an advertisement buyer … (Claim 1. Also see at least ¶¶ 9-11, claims 2-4, and Figs. 2-3),
display, via the display, the received targeted advertisement on the indicated advertisement space of the mobile terminal identified in the advertisement area information (Claim 1. Also see at least ¶¶ 9-11, claims 2-4, and Figs. 2-3).
While He teaches all of the above limitations, He does not appear to explicitly teach a communication interface configured to communicate with a marketplace server; transmit, via the communication interface, [the advertisement sale information] to the marketplace server; based on the transmitted advertisement sale information; and receive advertisement purchase confirmation information.
However, Whitman teaches a communication interface configured to communicate with a marketplace server (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5):
transmit, via the communication interface, [the advertisement sale information] to the marketplace server (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5);
based on the transmitted advertisement sale information (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, 44, 46, 48-50, and claims 1-5); and
receive advertisement purchase confirmation information (¶¶ 7, 23, 33, 37, and claims 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Whitman, into He. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to allow potential advertisers to have access to a marketplace for ad space (Whitman, ¶ 37), thereby allowing an advertiser to identify an ad space before committing to an ad campaign in that ad space (Whitman, ¶ 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of displaying advertisements in premium fixed positions, thereby increasing the likelihood that the user will see and engage with the advertisement. The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While the combination of He/Whitman teach all of the above limitations, they do not appear to explicitly teach display an advertisement service screen with [advertisement sale information]; [cost for] for viewing the advertisement; [advertisement use information] in the displayed advertisement service screen; and including a user reward for viewing the received targeted advertisement.
However, Tumen teaches display an advertisement service screen with [advertisement sale information] (Figure 4A and ¶¶ 58, 65, 76, 86-88, and 98);
[cost for] for viewing the advertisement (Figure 4A and ¶¶ 58, 65, 76, 86-88, and 98);
[advertisement use information] in the displayed advertisement service screen (Figure 4A and ¶¶ 58, 65, 76, 86-88, and 98); and
including a user reward for viewing the received targeted advertisement (Figure 4A and ¶¶ 58, 65, 76, 86-88, and 98).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Tumen, into the combination of He/Whitman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable consumers to earn money from sharing user data and viewing advertisements (Tumen, ¶¶ 2, 8, and 98). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to in order to identify preferences of users so that advertisements are more targeted to user preferences, thereby improving a user’s experience (Tumen, ¶ 33). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Whitman, in view of Emmanuel et al. (US 2022/0351270 A1, hereinafter “Emmanuel”) in further view of Checo (US 2024/0070711 A1, hereinafter “Checo”).
As per Claim 6, He teaches wherein the controller is further configured to (¶ 16 and Fig. 3. Also see at least ¶¶ 9-11, claims 1-4, and Fig. 2), and
… the advertisement purchase request (¶¶ 9-11 and 25. Also see claims 1-4 and Figs. 2-3).
The combination of He/Whitman do not appear to teach wherein the user device and the marketplace server are connected through a blockchain network, and wherein the marketplace server and the advertiser service server are connected through the blockchain network.
However, Emmanuel teaches wherein the user device and the marketplace server are connected through a blockchain network (¶¶ 2, 37-39, 49, 68-71, and Fig. 2. Also see at least Figs. 1A-1B and 3-4).,
wherein the marketplace server and the advertiser service server are connected through the blockchain network (¶¶ 2, 37-39, 49, 68-71, and Fig. 2. Also see at least Figs. 1A-1B and 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Emmanuel, into the combination of He/Whitman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to secure user data (Emmanuel, ¶ 6), build user trust between users and content providers (Emmanuel, ¶ 48), and enable users to grant or deny access to user data (Emmanuel, ¶¶ 5-6) from the use of blockchain’s cryptographic hashing and decentralization. The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While the combination of He/Whitman/Emmanuel teach all of the above limitations, they do not appear to explicitly teach automatically, deposit the user reward into a wallet corresponding to the user device through a smart contract.
However, Checo teaches automatically, deposit the user reward into a wallet corresponding to the user device through a smart contract (Abstract “A method of incentivizing a consumer to share data useful for ad targeting includes providing a mobile application with a dedicated digital keyboard and an integrated blockchain wallet; collecting first person data typed into the keyboard according to a smart contract; storing the data on a data storage medium; and rewarding the consumer for sharing the data. A system for incentivizing the consumer to share the data includes a mobile computing device having a processor and a memory. A mobile application resident on the memory includes a keyboard graphical interface integrated with a smart contract dashboard and a cryptocurrency wallet address. The consumer can generate a passive income. The keyboard system can replace cookies as a method of obtaining 1st party data for advertisers.” Also see at least ¶¶ 21 and 25-28.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Checo, into the combination of He/Whitman/Emmanual. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to securely share user data through the use of smart contracts which are known to be highly secure and resistant to tampering or unauthorized access. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to enable users to generate passive income from sharing user data, and providing advertiser with broader reach and more detailed knowledge about their customers from the shared user data (Checo, Abstract and ¶ 10). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Whitman, in further view of Emmanuel.
As per Claim 7, He teaches wherein the controller is further configured to (¶ 16 and Fig. 3. Also see at least ¶¶ 9-11, claims 1-4, and Fig. 2)
… including the advertisement sale information input by a user from the user device …(¶¶ 9-11 and 25. Also see claims 1-4 and Figs. 2-3).
The combination of He/Whitman do not appear to explicitly teach receive a human non-fungible token (NFT).
However, Emmanual teaches receive a human non-fungible token (NFT) (Figures 3-4 and ¶¶ 45-52.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Emmanuel, into the combination of He/Whitman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to secure user data (Emmanuel, ¶ 6), build user trust between users and content providers (Emmanuel, ¶ 48), and enable users to grant or deny access to user data (Emmanuel, ¶¶ 5-6) from the use of blockchain’s cryptographic hashing and decentralization. The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Whitman, in further view of Sweeney et al. (US 2021/0192075 A1, hereinafter “Sweeney”).
As per Claim 9, the combination of He/Whitman do not appear to explicitly teach wherein a degree of compensation is varied depending on an open range of the personal information.
However, Sweeney teaches wherein a degree of compensation is varied depending on an open range of the personal information (Figure 3H which shows a user earning 100 points for sharing location data in element 380 and another 100 points for “Getting to know you”. [0057] “Selection of a UI command item 382 “Getting to know you” can be used to generate a very wide variety of screens 340 adapted to solicit any desired form(s) or class(es) of further information. For example, as shown in FIGS. 3N, 3O, a user can be presented with UIs 340, 390, 392, comprising interactive survey elements 398 adapted to elicit or authorize sharing of identifiers, demographic data, preferences, etc., to be used by one or more data management server(s) 200 in selectively permitting access to the user's data by one or more data mining system(s) 300. Such information can, for example include: [0058] Demographic data, such as: [0059] Age, birthdate [0060] Gender or gender preference [0061] Income [0062] Residence region or location [0063] Purchase preferences [0064] Food preferences [0065] Travel preferences [0066] Vehicle preferences [0067] Clothing size or preferences [0068] Style preferences [0069] Political or religious preferences [0070] Music preferences [0071] etc. [0072] Preferences, such as [0073] Preferred vendors/solicitors or vendor/solicitor types [0074] Non-preferred (e.g., temporarily or permanently blocked) vendors/solicitors, or vendor/solicitor types [0075] Preferred contact methods, which can vary according to vendor(s) or vendor type(s); e.g., e-mail, telephone, social media [0076] Preferred contact types: [0077] Special offers [0078] Seasonal or other temporal preferences, e.g., time of day, day of week, etc. [0079] etc.” Also see at least Figs. 3N-3O.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Sweeney, into the combination of He/Whitman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to entice users to share more information in order to earn more money (Sweeney, ¶ 85). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable advertisers to gain access to more user information, thereby improving targeted advertisements by targeting users based on their known interests and demographics. The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Whitman, in view of Tumen, in further view of Holbrook (US 2006/0161535 A1, hereinafter “Holbrook”).
As per Claim 11, He teaches wherein the advertisement space on the mobile terminal that displays the advertisement corresponds to displaying the advertisement … (Claim 1. Also see at least ¶¶ 9-11, claims 2-4, and Figs. 2-3).
While He displays the advertisement in the advertisement space on the mobile terminal, the combination of He/Whitman/Tumen do not appear to explicitly teach within an icon displayed on the display.
However, Holbrook teaches displaying the advertisement within an icon displayed on the display ¶ 82 “Advertisements may be placed inside of the category icons 420 or activated when a user places a cursor over category icon 420 or category member 402.” ¶ 160 “For example, in one embodiment of this invention, a textual, graphical, or aural advertisement may be integrated into each GUI page by adding one more ring (or circle) and placing an advertiser's icon or a brief description of the advertisement inside.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Holbrook, into the combination of He/Whitman/Tumen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable a user to easily see an advertisement without taking up much of the limited screen space of the mobile terminal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to provide advertisements within category icons, thereby increasing click through for advertisers (Holbrook, ¶ 66). Additionally, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the displaying of the advertisement within the icon displayed of Holbrook for the advertisement displayed in the advertisement space of the combination of He/Whitman/Tumen. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious (KSR Rationale B).
As per Claim 12, while He displays the advertisement in the advertisement space on the mobile terminal, the combination of He/Whitman/Tumen do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the icon is a home screen icon.
However, Holbrook teaches displaying the advertisement within an icon displayed on the display, wherein the icon is a home screen icon (¶ 82 “Still referring to the embodiment of FIG. 4, each depicted web site 402 is shown on page 305 as being a member of the parent category 420 within which it belongs. Referring to FIG. 4, for example, the web site icons 402 for all of the selected number of matching web sites falling within each parent category 420("REGIONAL", "BUSINESS", "HOME", etc. . . . ) are grouped together and have the same color. Thus, color and organization are used in this example as indicating membership in a certain parent category. Adjacent each grouping of web site icons 402 in this embodiment is a textual representation of the parent category name 403. A category icon is preferably a border, such as a circle, 410, shown surrounding each group of web site icons 402 and parent category name 403. Category icons may be shaped to represent the category they represent, that is, the shape of a telephone for a category comprising a group of telephone numbers, a football for a category comprising a group of football players, or an icon shaped like a baseball, shopping basket or car for relevant categories. The entire display for each depicted parent category 420 in this embodiment includes the border 410, one or more matching web site icons 402 and the parent category name 403, and may be referred to herein as a "parent category cluster" 420 or category icon. Advertisements may be placed inside of the category icons 420 or activated when a user places a cursor over a category icon 420 or category member 402.” ¶ 83 “The web site of each depicted web site icon 402 can, if desired, be made accessible to the user. In the embodiment of FIG. 4, each web site icon 402 is a hyperlink to the web site being represented thereby, so that a user can access that web site upon selecting the icon 402. In such case, the web site will be downloaded to the browser 102 (FIG. 1) and its home page will appear on the user's computer display upon the user clicking or selecting the icon 402. Any other suitable format or method can be used to show or provide access to matching web sites, if these features are desired.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Holbrook, into the combination of He/Whitman/Tumen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable a user to easily see an advertisement without taking up much of the limited screen space of the mobile terminal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to provide advertisements within category icons, thereby increasing click through for advertisers (Holbrook, ¶ 66). Additionally, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the displaying of the advertisement within the home screen icon displayed of Holbrook for the advertisement displayed in the advertisement space of the combination of He/Whitman/Tumen. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious (KSR Rationale B). The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitation is not given patentable weight because it is nonfunction descriptive material. However, for the sake of advancing prosecution, all limitations are considered and addressed.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Whitman, in view of Tumen, in further view of Mochrie et al. (US 2022/0245675 A1, hereinafter “Mochrie”).
As per Claim 13, He teaches wherein the advertisement space on the mobile terminal that displays the advertisement corresponds to… (Claim 1. Also see at least ¶¶ 9-11, claims 2-4, and Figs. 2-3).
While He teaches an advertisement space on the mobile terminal that displays advertisements, including a mobile terminal that displays an advertisement for an entire day (¶ 11), the combination of He/Whitman/Tumen do not appear to explicitly teach an always-on-display screen, a home screen display, or another display screen different than the always-on-display screen and the home screen display.
However, Mochrie teaches an always-on-display screen, a home screen display, or another display screen different than the always-on-display screen and the home screen display ¶¶ 9, 11, 47, 52, 53, 55, 130-134, and claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Mochrie, into the combination of He/Whitman/Tumen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to have a dedicated ad display area, thereby reducing clutter in the OS display so that apps may be viewed in their entirety without ads taking up space that would otherwise display app content (Mochrie, ¶ 54). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to increase ad viewability, thereby increasing the chances of a user actually seeing and responding to ads (Mochrie, ¶¶ 54-55). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Whitman, in view of Tumen, in further view of Sweeney et al. (US 2021/0192075 A1, hereinafter “Sweeney”).
As per Claim 14, He teaches … advertisement sale information, the processor is further configured to (¶¶ 9-11 and 25. Also see claims 1-4 and Figs. 2-3).
The combination of He/Whitman do not appear to explicitly teach wherein in displaying the advertisement service screen with [advertisement sale information].
However, Tumen teaches wherein in displaying the advertisement service screen with [advertisement sale information] (Figure 4A and ¶¶ 58, 65, 76, 86-88, and 98).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Tumen, into the combination of He/Whitman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable consumers to earn money from sharing user data and viewing advertisements (Tumen, ¶¶ 2, 8, and 98). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to in order to identify preferences of users so that advertisements are more targeted to user preferences, thereby improving a user’s experience (Tumen, ¶ 33). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While the combination of He/Whitman/Tumen teach all of the above limitations, they do not appear to explicitly teach display an initial screen on the display according to execution of an advertisement service application on the mobile terminal, wherein the advertisement service application provides a service that obtains compensation through a sale of the advertisement space on the mobile terminal, and after the initial screen is displayed, display a personal information setting screen including a first option that confirms the user of the mobile terminal agrees to share personal information and a second option that identifies the personal information of the user using the mobile terminal.
However, Sweeney teaches display an initial screen on the display according to execution of an advertisement service application on the mobile terminal, wherein the advertisement service application provides a service that obtains compensation through a sale of the advertisement space on the mobile terminal (Figures 2A-3O and associated paragraphs) , and
after the initial screen is displayed, display a personal information setting screen including a first option that confirms the user of the mobile terminal agrees to share personal information and a second option that identifies the personal information of the user using the mobile terminal (Figs. 2A-3O and associated paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above features as taught by Sweeney, into the combination of He/Whitman/Tumen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable users to earn cash, rewards, or incentives in exchange for granting access to user data (Sweeney, ¶ 51). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to in order to identify preferences of users so that advertisements are more targeted to user preferences (Sweeney, ¶ 91). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on claims 15, 16 and 17, they are found to recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. Claims 18-19 are also allowable due to their dependency to claim 17. While the prior art teach the selection of the advertisement space, a personal information setting screen which includes options to share email and GPS locations (see Sweeney), they do not explicitly teach “display an advertisement space selection screen including an always-on-display screen option that displays the advertisement on the always-on-display screen of the mobile terminal, a home screen option that displays the advertisement on the home screen of the mobile terminal, a smart board screen option that displays the advertisement on a smart board screen of the mobile terminal, an additional display option that displays the advertisement on an additional display of the mobile terminal, and a widget screen option that displays the advertisement on the widget screen of the mobile terminal” as recited in claim 15, “wherein the personal information setting screen includes options configured to share emails, text message, phone call and GPS locations with the marketplace server configured to receive targeted advertisements” as recited in claim 16, and “display an editing screen for editing the advertisement space including an always-on- display screen, wherein the editing screen includes a first editing option for editing a style or type of the advertisement space, a second editing option for editing a size of an advertisement space, and a third editing option for editing a type of target advertisement” as recited in claim 17. Additionally, while each of the individual features may have been known per se, there is no teaching or suggestions absent Applicant’s own disclosure to combine these features in the specific manner claimed other than with impermissible hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument: “However, none of the MPEP, the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit has ever asserted that all of advertising/marketing is necessarily abstract any more than all metal alloys are abstract.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a) states that advertising and marketing fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas.
Argument: “In addition, the present claims provide an improvement to the functioning of computer/network technology.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification is completely silent regarding the claimed invention improving the functioning of a computer. Unlike in Enfish in which the claimed invention achieved other benefits over conventional databases such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements that provided improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The additional elements here are recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea.
Argument: “the present claims make it ‘possible to respond to follow-up marketing activity by checking the customer’s feedback after watching the advertisement in real-time [and] [m]onetization can be possible in exchange for providing advertising area and data directed from the user’s point of view…. Thus, claim 1 represents an improvement that can be characterized as an improvement to advertising technology as well as an improvement to a display in a very specific manner.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the alleged improvements are entirely in the realm of the abstract idea (i.e., improvements to advertising/marketing). “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement” (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Second, unlike the claimed invention in Core Wireless which provided an improved user interface, here the display is used in its ordinary capacity. The Examiner notes that “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Argument: “This compare favorably to the non-specific ‘look and feel description associated with a host web page having a link correlated with a commerce object’ described in DDR Holdings.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In DDR the activation of a hyperlink on a host website generates and directs a visitor to a composite web page that displays product information from a third-part merchant, but retains the host website’s “look and feel”, thereby giving a viewer of the page the impression that they are viewing pages served by the host website. The claimed invention in DDR addressed the Internet centric problem of retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly transported away from a host’s website after clicking on an advertising and activating a hyperlink. Here, the claimed invention merely displays advertisements in a generic manner, and there is no indication from the claims or specification that the claimed invention provides such an improvement as DDR. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Argument: “The present claims do not merely recite the abstract idea of selling advertising space or paying a user a reward. Instead, it claims a concrete technical architecture that solves a problem particular to networked computing devices, i.e., how a user can designate and monetize a precise portion of the visual real estate on the screen of his or her own device while still retaining control over that space and without surrendering the device's ordinary interface.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Monetizing a portion of a person’s screen is a commercial interaction because it involves advertising/marketing, sales activities or behaviors or business relations. Similar to Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu (Fed. Cir. 2014) which claimed an eleven-step method for displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted media, here the claimed invention exchanges access to space on a user’s screen for rewards. Therefore, similar to Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu (Fed. Cir. 2014), the claimed invention here is also “us[es] advertising as an exchange or currency”.
Argument: “The present claims, taken as an ordered combination, manipulate the interactions among a user device, a marketplace server, an advertiser service server, and a distribution platform in a way that is not conventional as is evident from a lack of §§ 102/103 rejections. The solution is therefore "necessarily rooted in computer technology" and addresses a problem that arises only in the realm of networked user devices and multi-server advertisement delivery systems. Because the claim recites a specific technological solution to an Internet and/or device-centric problem (rather than a generic application of a longstanding commercial practice) the reasoning of DDR Holdings supports a finding that the claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Thus, the ordered combination of steps addresses a technological challenge in internet- based advertising in a field-specific way, rather than just automating a previously-known business method or human activity. Evidence to this end is found in the present specification (as discussed above) and is proved non-generic by the lack of any rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Further, there is no evidence the present claims are directed to a fundamental economic principle.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, “the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possible patentable subject matter” (MPEP 2106.05(I)).
Second, viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Third, unlike DDR in which claimed solution was necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, here the claimed invention simply attempts to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments similar to the claimed invention in buySAFE Inc. v. Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014). “We caution, however, that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent” (see p. 22 of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Argument: “These are real advantages that represent an improvement in targeted advertising not generic to internet-based advertising in general.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, “eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a ‘useful, concrete, and tangible result” (MPEP 2106(I)). Second, the alleged improvements are entirely in the realm of the abstract idea (i.e., improvements to advertising/marketing). “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement” (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Argument: “This improves the functioning of distributed computing systems used for advertising (e.g., more efficient, device-aware ad transaction processing), not merely the abstract commercial concept of advertisement. This is distinguishable from SAP America because the present claims involve concrete system components and data flows solving technical challenges in user-device ad environments, which is analogous to DDR Holdings in the advertising/network context.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, there is no indication from the claims or specification that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer, let alone, causing computing systems to be more efficient. The specification is completely silent regarding such improvements. Second, “eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a ‘useful, concrete, and tangible result” (MPEP 2106(I)). Third, unlike DDR in which the claimed invention solved the business challenge of retaining website visitors that is particular to the Internet, here the claimed invention amounts to merely reciting the performance of a business practice of providing an advertising service along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet.
Therefore, the claims as currently amended still do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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 on 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights