DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 23 June 2026.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15-17 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15-17 are rejected.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the “the amended claims do not merely output advertising information, but recite a specific structured vehicle HMI display mechanism in which per-vehicle advertising information and group-wide advertising information are visually differentiated on a map b different pin shapes or colors. The proposed amendments are supported by the present application, including paragraph 44 for the vehicle sensor examples and paragraphs 75-80 and FIG. 5 for map-based pins and different pin shapes or colors. Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are directed to a practical application and an improvement in another technology or technical field, namely vehicle HMI, because they claims specify how different type of advertising information are displayed in a group-driving environment so that occupants can distinguish information relevant to each vehicle from information relevant to the entire group.” Remarks at 8. While Examiner agrees that the indicated paragraphs and figure support the added limitations, the indicated paragraphs and figures do not support a conclusion that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract idea. The indicated paragraphs and figure do not show that an improvement in technology is present. Were interfaces previously not able to display different pin shapes or colors? Was this a problem that existed in vehicle HMI technology that is solved by the present invention? One of ordinary skill would not look at the present specification and know that a technological improvement is present. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 9 recite a method which is considered a process. Claims 10, 12, and 13 recite a vehicle which is considered a machine. Claims 15-17 recite a server which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
The claims recite the concept of providing targeted advertisements to vehicle occupants based on information known about the occupants (see “collecting, by a controller of the vehicle, information on occupants of the vehicle through a vehicle sensor including at least one of a camera, a seat sensor, or a seat belt sensor physically disposed within the vehicle after the vehicle participates in the group driving; transmitting, by the controller of the vehicle participating in the group driving, the information on occupants to a server; receiving, by the controller, the advertising information based on the information on occupants in the plurality of vehicles participating in the group driving from the server; and outputting, by the controller, the received advertisement information through a display device, wherein the outputting of the advertising information through the display device includes separately displaying advertisement information for occupants in each vehicle and advertisement information for all occupants in the vehicles participating in the group driving using different visual indicators on the display device, wherein the different visual indicators comprise pins positioned on a map within the display device at locations respectively corresponding to affiliated stores and at positions associated with a shared destination or route of the group driving, and wherein the advertisement information for occupants in each vehicle is displayed in a first pin shape or color, and the advertisement information for all occupants in the plurality of vehicles is displayed in a second pin shape or color different from the first pin shape or color” in claim 1, for example). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including advertising activities. Thus, claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15-17 recite an abstract idea.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea found in the independent claims but do not take the claims out of the identified abstract idea grouping. They, for example, further limit how the advertising information is determined such as based on a destination, based on products, etc. Thus, all claims recite an abstract idea.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claim limitations out of the identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a controller of a vehicle (claims 1, 4, and 5), a server (claims 4-6, 8, and 9), a vehicle comprising a sensor, display device, and controller (claims 10, 12, and 13), a server (claims 12 and 13), or a server comprising a communication device and a controller (claims 15-17) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The controller, vehicle, or server does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Note that the vehicle sensor in claim 1 is not positively recited as it is not actively performing any method steps. It is merely the source of data which is collected by the controller of the vehicle. Thus, the vehicle sensor in claim 1 is not considered an additional element.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights