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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 9/15/2025.
Claims 4-6 and 9 will be cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 7-8 and 10-15 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10-13 recite a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., process. Claim 14 calls for non-transitory computer readable-medium, which is a tangible article and thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; manufacture. Claim 15 describe tangible system components, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Representative claim 1 recites:
storing and maintaining a plurality of contents playable back before or after at least one advertisement played back on at least one large display; providing information related to the plurality of contents to at least one client; selecting at least one content from among the plurality of contents in response to a selection input from the at least one client based on information related to the plurality of contents; and providing a content service of allowing the selected at least one content to be played back on the at least one large display to the at least one client.
The limitations of contents playable before and after advertisement, selecting the content from the client based on information related to the content, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers advertising, marketing or sales activities but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 doesn’t recite any additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, there are no additional elements that amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent 14 and system claim 15 are rejected under the same rationale as method claim 1 rejected above, as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as above. In addition the claims further recite a processor, the specification as filed discloses “one or more general-purpose…. Computers”. “These generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Dependent claims 2-13 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. There’re no additional elements that transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further abstract limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (KR 102324135 B1 hereinafter ‘135 patent) in view of Kyun (KR 102059673 B1 hereinafter Kyun).
With respect to claims 1 and 14, ‘135 patent teaches:
A content service providing method executed by a computer system, the content service (i.e. platform server 100) providing method comprising:
storing and maintaining a plurality of contents (i.e. signage content) playable back before or after at least one advertisement (i.e. extended content as advertisements respectively) played back on at least one large display (i.e. signage 200);
providing information related to the plurality of contents to at least one client; selecting at least one content from among the plurality of contents in response to a selection input from the at least one client based on information related to the plurality of contents (i.e. the advertiser terminal 400 receives information about signage content and selects one of the content); and
providing a content service of allowing the selected at least one content to be played back on the at least one large display to the at least one client (i.e. the platform server 100 may cause the signage 200 to output to signage 200).
With respect to: providing the content service to the at least one client further comprises charging the at least one client a service fee for the content service based on playback information including a point in time, a number of playback times, time, and a period related to playback of the at least one content on the at least one large display, wherein the charging of the service fee for the content service comprises charging the at least one client the service fee for the content service further based on information related to playback of the at least one advertisement on the at least one large display, hardware information of the at least one large display, and location information of the at least one large display, and wherein the charging of the service fee for the content service further comprises paying at least a portion of the service fee to a creator of the at least one content. ‘135 patent teaches on page 6, 2nd paragraph “the advertising cost calculated by the advertising cost calculation module 140 to the advertiser terminal 400 in the form of a table. can The advertiser may select the advertisement space and time zone of the signage 200 in which the advertisement cost is set according to the date, advertisement space, time zone, etc. in a manner similar to selecting and making a reservation by selecting a hotel with a price set according to the date and room“. ‘135 patent is silent as to paying part of the fee to the creator of the content. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to pay creators, such as music creators, artists, marketing companies and the like for their services. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in ‘135 patent to pay the creators part of the fee collected from the advertisers in order to compensate the creators for their work.
With respect to the newly amended feature of providing an operating service of managing the at least one large display to the at least one client or an administrator that manages the at least one large display through the platform. Kyun teaches on page 4, 10th paragraph “the manager transmits the real-time advertisement status information for a specific region, neighboring region, dense commercial areas set by the advertiser to the terminal, including the PC, smartphone etc.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in ‘135 patent, the teachings of Kyun in order to provide the service of not only providing the advertising content of ‘135 patent but also the service of an administrator/manager for providing operating service in Kyun because such a teachings will help integrate both the advertising content and the operation service in one platform.
With respect to claim 15, ‘135 patent teaches a content service providing system implemented as a computer system the content service providing system (abstract).
processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions, wherein the at least one processor comprises (Figure 1).
a platform provider configured to store and maintain a plurality of contents playable back before or after at least one advertisement played back on at least one large display, and to provide information related to the plurality of contents to at least one client (i.e. the intermediary platform may be implemented as a web or an application, and may allow access to the advertiser terminal 400 through a network, and may allow the advertiser to search for a desired signage 200 and make advertisement request);
a content selector configured to select at least one content from among the plurality of contents in response to a selection input from the at least one client based on information related to the plurality of contents (i.e. the advertiser terminal 400 receives information about signage content and selects one of the content);
and a content service provider configured to provide a content service of allowing the selected at least one content to be played back on the at least one large display to the at least one client (i.e. the platform server 100 may cause the signage 200 to output to signage 200).
With respect to: providing the content service to the at least one client further comprises charging the at least one client a service fee for the content service based on playback information including a point in time, a number of playback times, time, and a period related to playback of the at least one content on the at least one large display, wherein the charging of the service fee for the content service comprises charging the at least one client the service fee for the content service further based on information related to playback of the at least one advertisement on the at least one large display, hardware information of the at least one large display, and location information of the at least one large display, and wherein the charging of the service fee for the content service further comprises paying at least a portion of the service fee to a creator of the at least one content. Patent ‘135 teaches on page 6, 2nd paragraph “the advertising cost calculated by the advertising cost calculation module 140 to the advertiser terminal 400 in the form of a table. can The advertiser may select the advertisement space and time zone of the signage 200 in which the advertisement cost is set according to the date, advertisement space, time zone, etc. in a manner similar to selecting and making a reservation by selecting a hotel with a price set according to the date and room“. Patent ‘135 teaches is silent as to paying part of the fee to the creator of the content. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to pay creators, such as music creators, artists, marketing companies and the like for their services. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in KR 102324135 to pay the creators part of the fee collected from the advertisers in order to compensate the creators for their work.
With respect to the newly amended feature of providing an operating service of managing the at least one large display to the at least one client or an administrator that manages the at least one large display through the platform. Kyun teaches on page 4, 10th paragraph “the manager transmits the real-time advertisement status information for a specific region, neighboring region, dense commercial areas set by the advertiser to the terminal, including the PC, smartphone etc.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in patent ‘135 the teachings of Kyun in order to provide the service of not only providing the advertising content of patent ‘135 but also the service of an administrator/manager for providing operating service in Kyun because such a teachings will help integrate both the advertising content and the operation service in one platform.
With respect to claim 3, patent ‘135 teaches wherein the maintaining and the storing of the plurality of contents comprises constructing and updating a platform that provides information related to the plurality of contents, and the providing of information related to the plurality of contents to the at least one client comprises allowing the at least one client to access the platform; wherein the selecting of the at least one content from among the plurality of contents comprises selecting the at least one content in response to the selection input from the at least one client on the at least one content generated on the platform (i.e. the intermediary platform may be implemented as a web or an application, and may allow access to the advertiser terminal 400 through a network, and may allow the advertiser to search for a desired signage 200 and make advertisement request).
With respect to claims 7-8, patent ‘135 further teaches wherein the providing of the content service to the at least one client further comprises charging the at least one client a service fee for the content service based on playback information including a point in time, the number of times, a time, and a period related to playback of the at least one content on the at least one large display; geographical location (i.e. the advertisement cost calculation module calculates the advertisement cost according to the signage 200 information, the advertisement space information, the advertisement time information, area and location, time zone and advertisement output duration).
Claim 10 further recites paying at least a portion of the charged fee to a building owner of a building in which the display is installed. Patent ‘135 teaches charging the advertiser a fee. Patent ‘135 is silent as to paying part of the fee to the creator of building owner in which the display is installed. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to pay store and building owners for allowing to use facilities to advertise products and services. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in patent ‘135 to pay the building owners part of the fee collected from the advertisers in order to compensate and motivate the owners to advertise at their location.
Claim 11 further recites performing preprocessing of the playback the selected content prior to providing the content service to the client. Patent ‘135 teaches the advertiser terminal 400 receives information about signage content. Patent ‘135 is silent as to performing preprocessing prior to providing the content to the advertisers. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to preprocess the content before sending it to the advertisers, such as addressing missing information, inconsistencies and the like. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included performing preprocessing of the playback the selected content prior to providing the content service to the client/advertisers because such a modification would help avoid missing information, and inconsistencies.
With respect to claims 12-13, patent ‘135 further teaches wherein the performing of the preprocessing comprises setting playback information that includes information on a point in time, a brightness, a feeling of color, a time, a speed, a volume, and a playback size related to playback of the selected at least one content; setting the playback information based on information related to playback of the at least one advertisement on the at least one large display, hardware information of the at least one large display, or location information of the at least one large display (i.e. installation location of the signage 200 , a shape or size of an advertisement space, and a desired time period for advertisement output may be input).
References of record but not applied in the current rejection:
Lee 10,402,250 teaches displaying advertisement boards for delivering information and advertisements by combining various IT technologies such as hardware, software, content and networks. Such a digital signage may be mounted on large buildings or places with a large floating population, such as terminals, public offices, bus stops, department stores, subways, airports, hotels, hospitals or public places where persons stay for predetermine times, such as elevators, theaters, restaurants, shopping malls or shops.
Article by Dung 2 Ttal Ki title, “Artificial intelligence IPTV set-top box area! How far has SK Broadband” teaches an artificial intelligence speaker that goes well wherever you place it, allowing you to listen to music as voice search, and is a set top-box without separate speakers or sound bar.
Response to Arguments
The 112 (b) have been withdrawn in lieu of claims amendments.
The 101 rejections have been maintained. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because according to Applicant, the claims are “directed toward solving the specific technical problem of inefficient utilization of large display and automatically managing charging a fee for the content based on a combination of advertisement information, hardware, and location information”. The Examiner wants to point out that the claims are not directed to solving a technical problem, such as memory allocation or processor, interface improvement or the like, but instead the claims are solving a revenue related problem of “create revenues by playing back a set advertisement at a time desired by an advertiser and by charging the advertiser a service fee”, paragraph 0003 of published application. Managing content and charging fee for ads, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” group, under 2A, prong one.
The claims further recite the additional elements of a processor on claims 14 and 15. The specification as filed discloses “one or more general-purpose…. Computers”. “These generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2A, prong two.
The instant claims are not similar in scope, to the claims in Bascom. The instant claims are directed to solving the specific technical problem of inefficient utilization of large display and automatically managing charging a fee for the content based on a combination of advertisement information, hardware, and location information and do not recite elements that as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Unlike the claims in Bascom which were determined that the additional elements in combination as a whole amounted to significantly more than just implementation of the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 7-8 and 10-15, 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.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to sharing service fees with content creators. The Examiner wants to point out that the claims were rejected under ‘135 patent in view of Official Notice and should be argued accordingly. Although the ‘135 patent teaches sharing the advertising revenue with signage owners or lessees. Official Notice was taken that it is old and well known to pay creators, such as music creators, artists, marketing companies and the like for their services, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in ‘135 patent to pay the creators part of the fee collected from the advertisers in order to compensate the creators for their work, and it should be argued accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622