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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Notes
Claims 4/14 have been cancelled, and Claims 5/15 depend on claims 4/14. Appropriate correction is required. For Examination purposes, Examiner has considered claim 5 as depending on claim 1, and claim 15 as depending on claim 11.
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, 5-13, 15-21 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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: stores one or more content files / displays one or more of the content files / receives signals from one or more wireless devices within an associated range / determines a location and a movement velocity of each of the one or more wireless devices based on sensor data from the signals received / determines that each of the one or more wireless devices is part of a same group when respective real-time location of each wireless device is localized within a particular radius and indicates movement along a common trajectory/ determine that the movement velocity of the respective wireless device is faster than a threshold velocity relative to the digital signage device/ select a content file from among the stored content files to be displayed based on the determination that the one or more wireless devices are part of the same group and that the movement velocity is faster than the threshold velocity, wherein the content file is prioritized based on being suitable for rapid consumption, and a different content file is selected from among the stored content files when the movement velocity is slower than the threshold velocity. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “device configured to display an advertisement selected from a plurality”, “select the advertisement…based on whether the one or more wireless devices are in a first group…whether the…devices are in a second group that is not localized within the particular radius”, “analyze the one or more profiles…for shared characteristics…specific to the first group and filter the database for an advertisement specific to the shared characteristics”, “filter the database for the advertisement that is suitable for a diverse audience or is specific to common characteristics, preferences, and/or demographics of the second group”, “the first type of advertisement is pre-classified…and the second type of advertisement is pre-classified”, “optimizing the assignment of signals to devices and ensuring accurate tracking”, “the extraction process ensures that the selected advertisement is ready for immediate display, optimizing the engagement potential.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a memory / digital signage device / an antenna array / wireless device (s) / a signal processor / a processor that executes instructions stored in memory, which represent generic computing elements. The additional element of receiving radio frequency signals does no more than link or apply the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element of providing/using real-time data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Receiving radio frequency signals does no more than link or apply the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element of providing/using real-time data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 11, 21 are directed to a method and CRM for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claims 11 , 21 recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 11 , 21 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 11 , 21 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-20 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claims 1/11. The claims further recite the abstract idea of a mathematical concept – i.e. mathematical calculations/relationships, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: “determines the real-time location …using at least one of…a Kalman filter” ; the Kalman filter represents a recursive mathematical algorithm. The claims recite the additional elements of using trilateration to determine the wireless device location, the module operating in active mode/passive mode to detect signals. Using trilateration to determine the wireless device location represents insignificant extra-solution activity – i.e. it represents a well known and commonly used means of determining wireless device location, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention; Volkerink (20220256310), publication date of Aug 11/2022, teaches that “wireless tracking device 1415 determines location estimate 1460 using trilateration”, “or other entity of the wireless tracking system retrieves (e.g., from database 1510) geographic coordinates of the received cell tower identifiers and performs trilateration (or other locationing algorithm) “, “In certain embodiments, wireless tracking device 1415 includes specific triangulation and/or trilateration hardware for calculating location estimate 1460” , “and trilateration to determine location estimate 1460 is a backup method used by wireless tracking device 1415 to estimate its location when other methods have failed to provide location information for a certain period (e.g., 1 hour, four hours, six hours, and so on), which may be configurable.” A module operating in active/passive mode to detect signals does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5, 11, 15, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Rowe (WO 2012082155 A2) in further view of Wu (CN 103166691 A) in even further view of Kisko (20220084066 ).
As per Claims 1, 11, 21, Rowe teaches a system, method and CRM comprising:
digital signage device that displays one or more of the content files; (the device represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 32)
storing one or more content files in memory; (the memory represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 30 – server)
Wu further teaches:
receiving signals from one or more wireless devices within a range associated with an antenna array; (at least: page 2 – lines 1-20)
antenna array that receives radio frequency signals (at least page 2, lines 1-20)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rowe’s existing features, with Wu’s feature of receiving signals from one or more wireless devices within a range associated with an antenna array , to provide an intelligent antenna that provides applications in the cell phone movement system – Wu, abstract and “background technology” section, 1st para). Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
Rowe in view of Wu further teach:
determining a real-time location and movement velocity of each of the one or more wireless devices based on sensor data from the signals received from the antenna array; (Rowe: at least: para 46, 56, 8, 39; Wu teaches received signals from the antenna array, as noted above)
determining that each of the one or more wireless devices is part of a same group when respective real-time location of each wireless device is localized within a particular radius and indicates movement along a common trajectory; determining that the movement velocity of the respective wireless device is faster than a threshold velocity relative to the digital signage device; (Rowe, at least: para 46, 56, 8, 39)
selecting a content file from among the stored content files to be displayed on the digital signage device based on the determination that the wireless devices are part of the same group and that the movement velocity is faster than the threshold velocity. (Rowe, at least: para 46, 56, 8, 39; selecting and presenting the content – at least para 7, 33, 41, 49)
Kisko further teaches:
The content file is prioritized based on being suitable for rapid consumption, and a different content file is selected from among the stored content files when the movement velocity is slower than the threshold velocity. (at least para 19, 46; also teaches the concept of storing data in files – at least para 87, and “While the invention has been described with reference to an exemplary embodiment, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes may be made and equivalents may be substituted for elements thereof without departing from the scope of the invention. In addition, many modifications may be made to adapt a particular situation or material to the teachings of the invention without departing from the essential scope thereof. Therefore, it is intended that the invention not be limited to the particular embodiment disclosed as the best mode contemplated for carrying out this invention, but that the invention will include all embodiments falling within the scope of the appended claims.” – para 93, thus teaching the concept of a content file/files.)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rowe’s existing features, combined with Wu’s existing feature, with Kisko’s feature of the content file is prioritized based on being suitable for rapid consumption, and a different content file is selected from among the stored content files when the movement velocity is slower than the threshold velocity, to create a method for managing ad and information content taking into account user profile data/location and movement data– abstract, para 9. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
As per Claims 5, 15, Rowe in view of Wu in further view of Kisko further teach:
The selected content file is pre-classified as suitable for rapid consumption. (Kisko, at least para 19, 46)
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Rowe (WO 2012082155 A2) in further view of Wu (CN 103166691 A) in further view of Kisko (20220084066 ) ,in even further view of Dunn (CN 102473266 A).
As per claims 2, 12, Dunn teaches:
Memory further stores device profiles that include information regarding one or more of characteristics and preferences of a user associated with one or more of the wireless devices, and wherein the at least one processor further filters the content files based on the information regarding the characteristics and preferences in the device profiles. (Memory further stores device profiles that include information regarding one or more of characteristics and preferences of a user associated with one or more of the wireless devices: at least – page 4 – last 3 paras: “Additional information that can be used to create advertisements can be demographic and behavioral information associated with the user and/or the targeted device. Demographic information includes age, gender, race, income, location, and more. Advertisers can include target audience restrictions in dynamic creatives such that demographic information is necessary to ensure the appropriate audience receives the ad. Behavioral information includes user patterns indicative of a user's potential interests or expectations. For example only, a user executing various sports applications on a target device may be classified as a sports fan. Demographic and behavioral information can be associated with a user profile and can be stored in database 220 . Demographic and behavioral information may also be associated with the target device profile and may be stored in database 220 . Demographic and behavioral information may be resources used to further tailor advertisements to users and/or target devices. Once the target device information and/or application information is accessed and analyzed, the advertisement component 210 determines how to tailor the advertisement to achieve an optimized set of creatives. The accessed information is passed to the advertisement delivery component 211 . Advertisement delivery component 211 organizes creative elements of a dynamic creative and associates the dynamic creative with accessed information from target device 230 and/or database 220 . Any rules included in the dynamic creative are applied by the ad delivery component 211. Ad delivery component 211 then communicates the dynamic creative to ad selection component 212 .”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rowe’s existing features, combined with Wu’s existing features, combined with Kisko’s existing features, with Dunn’s feature of memory further stores device profiles that include information regarding one or more of characteristics and preferences of a user associated with one or more of the wireless devices, and wherein the at least one processor further filters the content files based on the information regarding the characteristics and preferences in the device profiles, to provide customized content – Dunn, abstract and para 29. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
As per claims 3, 13, Rowe in view of Wu in further view of Kisko in even further view of Dunn teach:
The device profiles further include demographic information of a user associated with one or more of the wireless devices , and wherein the at least one processor further filters the content files based on the demographic information in the device profiles. (Dunn, at least – page 4 – last 3 paras: “Additional information that can be used to create advertisements can be demographic and behavioral information associated with the user and/or the targeted device. Demographic information includes age, gender, race, income, location, and more. Advertisers can include target audience restrictions in dynamic creatives such that demographic information is necessary to ensure the appropriate audience receives the ad. Behavioral information includes user patterns indicative of a user's potential interests or expectations. For example only, a user executing various sports applications on a target device may be classified as a sports fan. Demographic and behavioral information can be associated with a user profile and can be stored in database 220 . Demographic and behavioral information may also be associated with the target device profile and may be stored in database 220 . Demographic and behavioral information may be resources used to further tailor advertisements to users and/or target devices. Once the target device information and/or application information is accessed and analyzed, the advertisement component 210 determines how to tailor the advertisement to achieve an optimized set of creatives. The accessed information is passed to the advertisement delivery component 211 . Advertisement delivery component 211 organizes creative elements of a dynamic creative and associates the dynamic creative with accessed information from target device 230 and/or database 220 . Any rules included in the dynamic creative are applied by the ad delivery component 211. Ad delivery component 211 then communicates the dynamic creative to ad selection component 212 .”)
Claims 6, 7, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Rowe (WO 2012082155 A2) in further view of Wu (CN 103166691 A) in further view of Kisko (20220084066 ) , in even further view of Prakash (CN 104380279 A).
As per claims 6, 16, Prakash teaches:
The wireless devices includes one or more of a cell phone and an asset tag. (At least one of the one or more wireless devices is a cell phone – Prakash, at least: page 3 – last para: “
Fig. 1 illustrates the example ad system (hereinafter referred to " system 100 ") comprising statistics feedback according at least one embodiment of the present disclosure. System 100 can comprise such as at least one mobile device 102, digital signage 104, label controller 106 and cloud resource 108.The example of mobile device 102 can include but not limited to: such as based on Android operating system (OS), iOS , blackberry, blueberry oS, , Saipan the mobile communication equipment of the cellular handset or smart phone and so on of OS etc.;”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rowe’s existing features, combined with Wu’s existing features, combined with Kisko’s existing features, with Prakash’s feature of the wireless devices includes one or more of a cell phone and an asset tag, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
As per claims 7, 17, Rowe in view of Wu in further view of Kisko in further view of Prakash teach:
The asset tag includes one or more of a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, a near field communication (NFC) tag, a Wi-Fi tag, a global position system (GPS) tag, and/or a long range (LoRa) tag. (Prakash teaches the cell phone [limitation of claim 6], as noted above – at least: page 3 – last para: “Fig. 1 illustrates the example ad system (hereinafter referred to " system 100 ") comprising statistics feedback according at least one embodiment of the present disclosure. System 100 can comprise such as at least one mobile device 102, digital signage 104, label controller 106 and cloud resource 108.The example of mobile device 102 can include but not limited to: such as based on Android operating system (OS), iOS , blackberry, blueberry oS, , Saipan the mobile communication equipment of the cellular handset or smart phone and so on of OS etc.;”)
Claims 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Rowe (WO 2012082155 A2) in further view of Wu (CN 103166691 A) in further view of Kisko (20220084066 ) , in even further view of Smith (20170238136).
As per claims 8, 18 Smith further teaches:
Processor determines the real-time location of each of the one or more wireless devices using at least one of …a Kalman filter. (at least: para 259, 117)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rowe’s existing features, combined with Wu’s existing feature, combined with Kisko’s existing feature, with Smith’s feature of configured to determine the real-time location of each of the one or more wireless devices using at least one of …a Kalman filter, to determine the wireless device’s current location with a high level of accuracy – Smith, para 259. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
Claims 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Rowe (WO 2012082155 A2) in further view of Wu (CN 103166691 A) in further view of Kisko (20220084066 ) , in even further view of Volkerink (20220256310).
As per claims 9, 19 Volkerink further teaches:
Processor determines the real-time location of each of the one or more wireless devices based on …trilateration. (at least: para 136, 130 – “When at least two wireless signals 1435 are received simultaneously, wireless tracking device 1415 may determine its location estimate 1460 to be within a certain area. When three or more wireless signals 1435 are received simultaneously, wireless tracking device 1415 may determine its location estimate 1460 using trilateration between the cell tower 1425 locations and using the respective RSSI values to estimate tower distances. In certain embodiments, wireless tracking device 1415 includes specific triangulation and/or trilateration hardware for calculating location estimate 1460. In some embodiments, the received wireless signal provides basic information about the cell towers including, for example, an identifier of the cell tower and/or a location of the cell tower.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rowe’s existing features, combined with Wu’s existing feature, combined with Kisko’s existing feature, with Volkerink’s feature of processor determines the real-time location of each of the one or more wireless devices based on …trilateration, since trilateration can be used as a backup method to determine a wireless device’s location when other methods have failed to provide location data for a certain period – Volkerink, para 136. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
Claims 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Rowe (WO 2012082155 A2) in further view of Wu (CN 103166691 A) in further view of Kisko (20220084066 ) , in even further view of Cohen (20260052450).
As per claims 10, 20 Cohen further teaches:
The antenna array pings the wireless devices for the signals when in active mode, and wherein the antenna array does not ping the wireless devices when in a passive mode. (at least: para 9, 39 – active mode, 47 and 53 – passive mode)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rowe’s existing features, combined with Wu’s existing feature, combined with Kisko’s existing feature, with Cohen’s feature of the antenna array pings the wireless devices for the signals when in active mode, and wherein the antenna array does not ping the wireless devices when in a passive mode, to allow for device tracking using an antenna array – Cohen, abstract and para 1. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Claims 1-21 are rejected as purportedly drawn to abstract subject matter, specifically the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice. Id. at 2, esq. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Prong one of step 2A requires that a claim must be shown to actually recite the purported abstract category in order to sustain a rejection under Section 101. MPEP § 2106.04 (noting that a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception "is set forth or described in the claim"). That requirement of MPEP S 2106.04 is not met in the present claims, which recite only computer-specific functions regarding use of phase array antennas to receive signals and to
determine the real-time location and movement velocity of wireless devices based on the same.
The real-time location and movement velocity is further used to identify that the wireless device
are part of the same group based on being within a certain proximity (radius) and moving along
a common trajectory, as well as to select a content file for presentation on a digital signage
device. Such functions are purely technical in nature, and the present claims are wholly silent
regarding any element that can be characterized as an abstract idea. The Office Action argues that "Applicant's Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm." Id. at 3. MPEP 2106.04(a) specifically instructs examiners to identify a specific limitation in the claim that recites an abstract idea and to separate claims reciting abstract ideas from those that are merely based on or involve an abstract idea. The Office Action does not identify, however, any abstract idea that is actually recited by the claims. Based on the foregoing, the claims do not recite abstract ideas and thus qualify as patent-eligible under step 2A without requiring further analysis, and Applicant respectfully submits the rejections are overcome.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered, but is not considered persuasive. The Examiner notes that he has expressly identified, in the previous as well as the Office Action above, the abstract idea(s) that is/are recited in the pending claims. As noted above, the pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not , alone or in combination, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Selecting and displaying targeted ad content on a digital signage device based on contextual data (including wireless device context data/location data) represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the pending claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “device configured to display an advertisement selected from a plurality”, “select the advertisement…based on whether the one or more wireless devices are in a first group…whether the…devices are in a second group that is not localized within the particular radius”, “analyze the one or more profiles…for shared characteristics…specific to the first group and filter the database for an advertisement specific to the shared characteristics”, “filter the database for the advertisement that is suitable for a diverse audience or is specific to common characteristics, preferences, and/or demographics of the second group”, “the first type of advertisement is pre-classified…and the second type of advertisement is pre-classified”, “optimizing the assignment of signals to devices and ensuring accurate tracking”, “the extraction process ensures that the selected advertisement is ready for immediate display, optimizing the engagement potential.” There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec. that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Claims 1-21 are rejected as purportedly indefinite. Id. at 6. Claims 1, 11, and 21 have been
amended to correct the antecedent basis. Claims 2, 6, 12, and 16 provide antecedent basis for
'the asset tag' and 'the characteristics and preferences.' As such, the rejections under Section
112(b) are now believed to be moot, and Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the
same.
Examiner agrees. The 35 USC 112 rejections have been overcome and have been withdrawn.
The recited limitations find support in previous claim 4 and the Specification as filed, which
describes the base module activating II different advertisement modules" based on detecting that
the detected device has II a velocity faster than a predetermined threshold." Specification, [0049].
For example, the different module may include "quick ad module ... for rapidly moving
devices" and "the detailed ad module ... for slower-moving individuals." Id.
The Office Action argues that Rowe teaches 'determine that the movement velocity of the
respective wireless device is faster than a threshold velocity relative to the digital signage
device' and 'selecting a content file from among the stored content files to be displayed on the
digital signage device based on the determination that the wireless devices are part of the same
group and that the movement velocity is faster than the threshold velocity' as claimed. Office
Action at 8. The cited portions of Rowe relate to "a bonusing and/or promotion system" based on "the
number of people at a particular location," from "person detection, crowd or person count"
rather than 'velocity of ... wireless device' as claimed. Rowe, [0028]. Moreover, the "rate of
movement of people detected by the sensors" in Rowe is simply used to determine whether a
person is "moving, still, assembling" for the purpose of determining the number of people,
rather than determining a relative speed against a 'digital signage device' as claimed. Id. at
[0039]. Thus, Rowe cannot teach determining 'that the movement velocity of the respective
device is faster than a velocity relative to the digital signage device' as claimed.
In addition, Rowe and Wu are silent regarding any prioritization relating to the content file
based on the movement velocity of the wireless device relative to the digital signate device and
selecting a different content file if the movement velocity is slower than the threshold velocity.
Thus, Rowe or Wu, individually or in combination, fails to teach 'select a content file from
among the stored content files to be displayed on the digital signage device based on the
determination that the one or more wireless devices are part of the same group and that the
movement velocity is faster than the threshold velocity, wherein the content file is prioritized
based on being suitable for rapid consumption, and a different content file is selected from
among the stored content files when the movement velocity is slower than the threshold
velocity' as claimed.Kisko fails to cure the deficiency of Rowe and Wu. Kisko relates to evaluating effectiveness of advertisement based on II consumer profile containing information about travel routes, traveltime, route repeatability, ... location, direction of movement and speed of movement of the
consumer's mobile device relative to the information display." Kisko, [0046]. However, Kisko is
similarly silent regarding providing a different content file based on the relative velocity of the
wireless mobile device. Thus, Kisko cannot teach 'wherein the content file is prioritized based on
being suitable for rapid consumption, and a different content file is selected from among the
stored content files when the movement velocity is slower than the threshold velocity' as
claimed.Dunn, Prakash, Smith, Volkerink, and Cohen cited only with respect to dependent claims cannot
cure the deficiencies of Rowe, Wu, and Kisko.In view of the above remarks, the independent claims are patentable over the cited references. Furthermore, because each of the dependent claims incorporates by reference all the limitations of the independent claim from which it depends, the dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons. The Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 be withdrawn.
Pending independent claims 1, 11, 21 are taught by Rowe (WO 2012082155 A2) in further view of Wu (CN 103166691 A) in even further view of Kisko (20220084066 ), as noted above.
As per Claims 1, 11, 21, Rowe teaches a system, method and CRM comprising:
digital signage device that displays one or more of the content files; (the device represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 32)
storing one or more content files in memory; (the memory represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 30 – server)
Wu further teaches:
receiving signals from one or more wireless devices within a range associated with an antenna array; (at least: page 2 – lines 1-20)
antenna array that receives radio frequency signals (at least page 2, lines 1-20)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rowe’s existing features, with Wu’s feature of receiving signals from one or more wireless devices within a range associated with an antenna array , to provide an intelligent antenna that provides applications in the cell phone movement system – Wu, abstract and “background technology” section, 1st para). Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
Rowe in view of Wu further teach:
determining a real-time location and movement velocity of each of the one or more wireless devices based on sensor data from the signals received from the antenna array; (Rowe: at least: para 46, 56, 8, 39; Wu teaches received signals from the antenna array, as noted above)
determining that each of the one or more wireless devices is part of a same group when respective real-time location of each wireless device is localized within a particular radius and indicates movement along a common trajectory; determining that the movement velocity of the respective wireless device is faster than a threshold velocity relative to the digital signage device; (Rowe, at least: para 46, 56, 8, 39)
selecting a content file from among the stored content files to be displayed on the digital signage device based on the determination that the wireless devices are part of the same group and that the movement velocity is faster than the threshold velocity. (Rowe, at least: para 46, 56, 8, 39; selecting and presenting the content – at least para 7, 33, 41, 49)
Kisko further teaches:
The content file is prioritized based on being suitable for rapid consumption, and a different content file is selected from among the stored content files when the movement velocity is slower than the threshold velocity. (at least para 19, 46; also teaches the concept of storing data in files – at least para 87, and “While the invention has been described with reference to an exemplary embodiment, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes may be made and equivalents may be substituted for elements thereof without departing from the scope of the invention. In addition, many modifications may be made to adapt a particular situation or material to the teachings of the invention without departing from the essential scope thereof. Therefore, it is intended that the invention not be limited to the particular embodiment disclosed as the best mode contemplated for carrying out this invention, but that the invention will include all embodiments falling within the scope of the appended claims.” – para 93, thus teaching the concept of a content file/files.)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rowe’s existing features, combined with Wu’s existing feature, with Kisko’s feature of the content file is prioritized based on being suitable for rapid consumption, and a different content file is selected from among the stored content files when the movement velocity is slower than the threshold velocity, to create a method for managing ad and information content taking into account user profile data/location and movement data– abstract, para 9. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
6/5/2026
Prosecution Insights