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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed March 2, 2026, the Examiner has withdrawn the 101 rejection. Although many of the underlying functions are reasonably characterized as certain methods of organizing human activity. The specific sequence of events using particular interactive hardware (two server pull architecture) uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10,12 -17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saracino et al. (US 2009/0144157) in view of Natsuno et al. (US 2002/0165773) in further view of Kolls (US 2002/0156704) and in view of in further view of Dillon et al. (US 2004/0205149)
Claim 1, 8, and 15: Saracino discloses a computer-implemented method for displaying digital content at product terminals, comprising:
creating, at a first server remote from the terminals, a plurality of digital content to be output at one or more terminals; (see for example [0037] Digital signage server 150 may provide, over the network 106, to for example, client devices 101-102, a creation interface configured to create a new digital signage message based on the template. Also see fig.1c [0045], [0048], A new digital signage message created by the system then is sent over a network such as Internet 106 to a digital signage client device 110.( Digital signage server = applicant’s first server))
assigning at least one digital content to each terminal from the one or more terminals based on the characteristics of a respective terminal from the one or more terminals; ([0040], The approved instance may be sent to devices based on a channel definition, also at [0007], a first renderable or rendered instance of the approved new digital signage in a first rendering format to a first digital signage device configured to display the first rendering format, and a second renderable or rendered instance in a second rendering format to a second digital signage device configured to display the second rendering format.)
modifying a digital content of the plurality of digital content assigned to a terminal of the one or more terminals such that the digital content is configured to be output by the terminal based on the characteristics of the terminal; ([0024], Templates are based on model-view-controller ("MVC") principles, which is an architectural pattern used in complex systems that present a large amount of data to the user. Using MVC patterns, a developer can separate data (or model) and user interface (or view) concerns, so that changes to the user interface will not affect data handling. [0058], Digital signage sent from server 150 may be adapted to be played with the components of client 112 based on a type of client (web client) and/or operating system of client 112.)
But does not explicitly disclose retrieving, from a second server associated with one or more of the terminals, characteristics about each of the one or more terminals;
However Natsuno retrieving from a second server associated with one or more of the terminals, characteristics about each of the one or more terminals; by a respective terminal based on the characteristics of the respective terminal; sending, to the second server associated with one or more of the terminals,[0062] ([0062] discloses advertisement server selects advertisement data based on model data of the destination mobile terminal) [0068] the advertisement distribution server 17 finds the advertisement ID corresponding to the combination of a code of the desired sent user conditions and the code of the desired sent user conditions received from the relay server 15 found in this way from the retrieval table 172 stored in the database 17A. Further, the advertisement distribution server 17 sends the advertisement ID found in this way to the relay server 15 along with the user IP address (advertisement server equivalent to applicant’s second server)) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the digital content management system of Saracino the ability of using a second server to retrieve characteristics associated with one or more terminals as taught by Natsuno in order to improve scalability and efficiency in retrieving terminal specific characteristics by distributing processing across multiple servers since Natsuno teaches retrieving such characteristics via a server. a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating a second server into Saracino would have predictably allowed for improved handling of multiple terminal request and reduce processing burden on a single server. Thus, the combination merely involves the use of known elements performing their known functions to yield a predictable result. Saracino and Natsuno do not explicitly disclose creating, at the first server, a playlist of digital content including the plurality of digital content, wherein the playlist includes an assignment of each digital content of the plurality of digital content to at least one terminal of the one or more terminals and the modified digital content; However Kolls discloses creating, at the first server, a playlist of digital content including the plurality of digital content, wherein the playlist includes an assignment of each digital content of the plurality of digital content to at least one terminal of the one or more terminals and the modified digital content; causing output of the playlist of digital content at the one or more terminals responsive to the second server pulling each digital content of the playlist of digital content; output each digital content of the playlist of the digital content, wherein the second server is distinct from the one or more terminals. (see for example abstract, Fig 2b and [0103] a plurality of system 500s interact with a plurality of play list servers 632A to query, store, and construct a plurality of play lists 220. The play list 220 includes a plurality of digital content appended with digital content header parameters. [0105] …intermittent connection to the network for content update. In this regard, from a user's perspective they are using an Internet based device capable of data communication over the Internet… he virtual play list server enables Internet based devices to server content to what they perceive to be another Internet based device. In this regard, the virtual play list allows the other Internet based data processing resources to operate and data communicate to what they believe is a true dedicated networked resource. The virtual play list server manages the communications between the Internet based data processing resources, adds the intelligence required to operate in a disconnect network mode--namely the header parameters, assembles the data into a play list, and waits until the system 500 connects to the network to get and give digital content.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the playlist from a server functionality of Kolls into the digital providing systems of Sacarino in order to enable centralized management and dynamic updating of digital content delivered to terminals, as Kolls teaches providing playlists from a server to control distribution. a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that including Kolls server-based playlist mechanism into the systems of Sacarino and Natsuno would have predictably allowed content to be managed and updated more efficiently across multiple terminals. Thus the simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve these known advantages would have yielded predictable results. Saracino, Natsuno and Kolls does not explicitly disclose, wherein the reference data is smaller than the respective digital content referenced thereby and wherein each reference data corresponds to a respective modified digital content that has been configured for output by a respective terminal based on the characteristics of the respective terminal; and causing output of the playlist of digital content at the one or more terminals responsive to the second server pulling each digital content of the playlist of digital content from the first server using the reference data by creating and executing a GET request including the reference data for each respective digital content and instructing the one or more terminal to output each digital content of the playlist of the digital content, wherein the second server is distinct from the one or more terminals. However Dillon discloses reference data corresponding to each digital content of the playlist of digital content, wherein the reference data is smaller than the respective digital content referenced thereby and wherein each reference data corresponds to a respective digital content that has been configured for output; ((applicant’s specification defines reference data as a URL at [0047 and 0072]) [0029] Each HTML document, graphic image, video clip or other individual piece of content is identified, that is, addressed, by an Internet address, referred to as a Uniform Resource Locator (URL). As used herein, a "URL" may refer to an address of an individual piece of web content (HTML document, image, sound-clip, video-clip, etc. ) or the individual piece of content addressed by the URL. When a distinction is required, the term "URL address" refers to the URL itself while the terms "web content", "URL content" or "URL object" refers to the content addressed by the URL.[0033] 0033] The web browser 103 can access URLs either directly from the web server 109 or through HTTP proxy servers 105 and 107. A web page (HTML page) may refer to various source documents by indicating the associated URLs. As discussed above, a URL specifies an address of an "object" in the Internet 113 by explicitly indicating the method of accessing the resource. A representative format of a URL is as follows: http://www.hns.com/homepage/document.html. This example indicates that the file "document.html" is accessed using HTTP.) and
the first server using the reference data by creating and executing a GET request including the reference data for each respective digital content and instructing the one or more terminal .(see for example [0036] A web browser 103 requests a URL from the proxy server (e.g., 105) which in turn "GETs" the URL from the addressed web server 109. Alternatively, web browser 103 may send its requests directly to web server 109 with HTTP proxy server 105 "transparently" intercepting and acting upon such requests. An HTTP proxy 105 itself may be configured to either access URLs directly from a web server 109 or from another HTTP proxy server)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the data retrieve mechanisms of Sacarino, to utilize the reference data and GET request technique of Dillon in order to standardize content retrieval and improve operability and efficiency in requesting digital content as Dillon teaches using reference data to request content in a predictable and reliable manner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that substituting Dillon’s request mechanism for the data retrieval mechanism of the primary reference would have yield predictable results, namely the retrieval of digital content using known request protocols. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Claim 2, 9, 16: Sacarino, Natsuno, Kolls , and Dillon, discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more terminals include a display and audio output device and the plurality of digital content includes image data and audio data, wherein the image data includes still image data or moving image data. ([0010 and 0073], Sacarino)
Claim 3, 10, 17: Sacarino, Natsuno, Kolls, and Dillon discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the characteristics of the one or more terminals include: a size of the display at the terminal; graphical assets of the display at the terminal; diagnostic parameters; or a type of user that uses the terminal. ([0037] Sacarino)
Claims 5, 12, 19: Sacarino, Natsuno, Kolls , and Dillon discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein identifying the type of user that uses the terminal based on data received from users’ interaction with the terminal. ([0023] Sacarino)
Claim 6, 13, 20: Sacarino, Natsuno, Kolls , and Dillon discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Kolls disclose the one or more terminals are located at an energy-dispensing station; [0099] also fig. 1p and the playlist of digital content is associated with one or more products available at a point-of- sale terminal corresponding to the energy-dispensing station.[0141, 0213]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sacarino to include the terminal at an energy dispensing station and associate the displayed digital content with products available at a point of sale terminal in order to deliver content relevant content to users at the time and location of purchase of fuel thereby increasing effectiveness of content delivery and facilitating the likelihood of purchasing products available at the point of sale terminal. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that presenting content related to products available at a fueling environment would predictably improve user engagement and purchasing efficiency, yielding predictable results.
Claim 7, 14: Sacarino, Natsuno, Kolls , and Dillon discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, system of claim 13 further comprising: receiving a request for inserting new digital content in the playlist from a third-party server, wherein the request includes the new digital content; and inserting the new digital content in the playlist. ([0038], Sacarino)
Claim(s) 4,11,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saracino et al. (US 2009/0144157) in view of Natsuno et al. (US 2002/0165773) in further view of Kolls (US 2002/0156704) in view of in further view of Dillon et al. (US 2004/0205149) in view of Ramer et al. (US 2007/0060136)
Claim 4, 11, 18: Sacarino, Kolls , and Collins discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein modifying the digital content includes: However Natsuno discloses adjusting the diagnostic parameters; [0062]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the adjustment of diagnostic parameters as taught by Natsuno in order to improve the accuracy and reliability of the system by adapting diagnostic thresholds based on operating conditions, since Natsuno teaches modifying diagnostic parameters to better evaluate the type of graphical information able to be displayed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an adjustment allows the system to more effectively detect display capabilities, thereby yielding predictable improvements in the outputting of digital content.Sacarino, Natsuno, Kolls , Dillon and Natsuno do not explicitly disclose adjusting the reduce the display size of the digital content based on the size of the display at the terminal; adjusting the graphical characteristics of the digital content based on the graphical assets of the display at the terminal; outputting a different audio data than the audio data included in the digital content; or replacing the digital content with a different digital content from the plurality of digital content. However Ramer disclsoses adjusting the reduce the display size of the digital content based on the size of the display at the terminal; [0079]
adjusting the graphical characteristics of the digital content based on the graphical assets of the display at the terminal; [0079] outputting a different audio data than the audio data included in the digital content; or replacing the digital content with a different digital content from the plurality of digital content. ([0062]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sacarino, to adjust characteristics of the digital content as taught by Ramer, in order to insure compatibility and optimize presentation of content of the digital content across terminals having different displays capabilities and configurations, since Ramer teaches adjusting display size, graphical characteristics, audio data or substituting content based on terminal capabilities. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adjusting content parameters to the capabilities of display of the terminal would predictably improve useability and the user experience, thereby yielding predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights