DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is responsive to Application filed on 10/29/2024. Claims 1-5 are pending in the case.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordon et al. (US 20180032997 A1, hereinafter Gordon).
As to independent claim 1, Gordon discloses an information presentation apparatus comprising a controller configured to display on screen (“FIG. 43 shows a configuration 4300 for an automobile capable of interfacing with the mobile device of FIG. 42, in accordance with one possible embodiment.” Paragraph 0795), upon detecting presence of information related to a destination when the destination is set by an occupant of a vehicle, a banner notifying the occupant of the information related to the destination (“For example, in one embodiment, a time to a location (e.g. an extra 30 minutes to the destination, etc.) may trigger to display an ad and/or content relative to the user's location and/or intended location.” Paragraph 0497, “ For example, in one embodiment, the ad and/or content display may include links (e.g. to a website, etc.), a cost savings tool (e.g. input number of items desired to see potential cost savings, etc.), pop up information,.. and/or any other interactive element.” Paragraph 0552), the controller saving a notification made by the banner according to voice input from the occupant (“Additionally, in some embodiments, options relating to the ads and/or content may include save, delete, send, and/or any action relating to the ad and/or content.” paragraph 0528,0535, “Using this connection, a user (e.g. a driver or passenger, etc.) may operate the mobile device 4202, via the automobile, using voice commands,” paragraph 0797. “In various embodiments, the user may communicate with the displayed ad by touching a touchscreen, giving audible voice commands, touching a command button found in the automobile (or the transportation being use) which is connected (e.g. via Bluetooth, etc.) to the GPS, and/or by any interface and/or device which may control the GPS.” Paragraph 0378).
As to dependent claim 2, Gordon further discloses the information presentation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to turn off display of the banner in saving the notification made by the banner (“in one embodiment, the user may select to save the displayed ads and/or content, and may do so by selecting the save option and then “save all ads and/or content.” In one embodiment, the ads and/or content may be viewed at a later time when convenient for the user.” paragraph 0535).
Claim 5 is substantially the same as claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale as above.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US 20180032997 A1, hereinafter Gordon) in view of Mehta et al. (US 20150143281 A1, hereinafter Mehta).
As to dependent claim 3, Gordon teaches the information presentation apparatus according to claim 1, Gordon does not appear to expressly teach wherein the controller is configured to display the saved notification on screen upon determining that the vehicle has arrived at the destination.
Mehta teaches wherein the controller is configured to display the notification on screen upon determining that the vehicle has arrived at the destination (“a notification can be repeated (e.g., displayed again) when an event occurs, such as when the user arrives at a destination. The user's location can be determined using a location service on the mobile device, such as a GPS device.” Paragraph 0028).
Accordingly, 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 apparatus of Gordon to comprise wherein the controller is configured to display the saved notification on screen upon determining that the vehicle has arrived at the destination. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure important alerts are never missed by users.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US 20180032997 A1, hereinafter Gordon) in view of Boroff et al. (US 20230108024 A1, hereinafter Boroff).
As to dependent claim 4, Gordon teaches the information presentation apparatus according to claim 1, Gordon does not appear to expressly tech the apparatus further comprising a communication interface configured to communicate with a server apparatus,
wherein the controller is configured to transmit, as a result of displaying a plurality of banners on screen, statistical data regarding notifications that have been saved according to the voice input and notifications that have not been saved, among notifications made by the plurality of banners, to the server apparatus via the communication interface.
Boroff teaches wherein the controller is configured to transmit, as a result of displaying a plurality of banners on screen, statistical data regarding notifications that have been saved and notifications that have not been saved, among notifications made by the plurality of banners, to the server apparatus via the communication interface (“Where the user's actions is to save the ad for later or otherwise acted upon, a special note can be recorded. Information recorded can also include, without limitation, who, where and when the user interacted with the specific ad.” Paragraph 0047).
Accordingly, 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 apparatus of Gordon to comprise wherein the controller is configured to transmit, as a result of displaying a plurality of banners on screen, statistical data regarding notifications that have been saved and notifications that have not been saved, among notifications made by the plurality of banners, to the server apparatus via the communication interface. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide relevant interactive elements to the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wanek et al. US 20110288917 A1 teaches an individual is provided with a first location-based targeted ad and is provided with the option to: (a) "snooze" or "show me later", thereby requesting the ad to be shown again at a later time, (b) "save" the ad thereby saving the ad for later reference or use or (c) "request another" to request to see the next relevant ad.
Oikonomidis US 20150213490 A1 “Advertisement can include interactive screen features to enable smartphone user to control presentation of ad, such as "show later" "close add", and also to provide feedback such as "I like this add" "I don't like this add". In response to detecting call connection has been established, advertisement is automatically removed from screen and 1.sup.st subscriber (and/or 2.sup.nd subscriber) is presented with usual screen details for ongoing call. In response to detecting call connection ended, advertisement may automatically reappear on screen (for example, if "show me later") is previously selected.” Paragraph 0074.
Kolodziej (US 20120053966 A1) teaches FIG. 7 is an example of questions that a mobile navigation system may ask a user upon arrival at a destination about arrival notices. The selectable options illustrated in FIG. 7 may be presented only if the user selected "Notify others of your arrival" in connection with the display illustrated in FIG. 5. As illustrated in FIG. 7, the user may elect to "Ask that merchandise be delivered to vehicle," "Pay for merchandise," "check-in," and/or "issue tweet" as a form of an arrival notice. The selection of any of these options, in turn, may cause other screens to display seeking information relevant to the selection. A different set of selections may be offered instead.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHELET SHIBEROU whose telephone number is (571)270-7493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/MAHELET SHIBEROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights