DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed 05 March 2026.
Claims 1, 6, 10, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 11 have been canceled.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The objection to the drawings has been remedied via amendment of the specification and is withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the “claimed configuration addresses a specific technical problem in a group driving environment - namely, how to effectively distinguish and present multiple types of advertising information (per-vehicle and group-wide) on a vehicle display device so that occupants can clearly identify which advertisements are relevant to their specific vehicle versus the entire group. The use of different visual indicators (e.g., different pin shapes or colors) on the display device constitutes a specific technical solution that improves the functioning of the vehicle display system itself.” Remarks at 8. Applicant has not pointed to, and Examiner does not find, support in the specification for a conclusion that visual indicators is a technical solution to a technical problem. A user trying to determine if an advertisement is targeted towards them individually versus targeted towards the group they’re in is not a technical problem when viewed at the level described in the specification. Providing something for display does not improve the functioning of the display system itself and there is no support showing otherwise. If a technical problem exists, it is not immediately clear to Examiner and thus this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC § 103, Applicant argues that “Sakurada, Parundekar, taken individually or combined, fail to teach or suggest inventive features of the presently claimed invention, 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, as is called for by claims 1, 6, 10 and 15.” Remarks at 9. Examiner agrees. An additional search has been performed and this feature is not found in the cited references or any new reference found by Examiner. The rejections are withdrawn. Sakurada and Parundekar remain the closest prior art available.
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 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” 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.
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
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