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 .
Status of the Application
This final office action is in response to the arguments/amendments, filed 2/17/2026. Claims 1, 7, and 8 have been amended. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, Claim 7 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
acquiring a travel time between bus stops;
setting an advertisement playable time by subtracting a predetermined duration of time that is set for each bus stop from the travel time;
calculating a number of playbacks of advertisements based on the advertisement playable time and an advertisement duration time that is set for each of the advertisements;
playing back at least one of the advertisements according to the number of playbacks of the advertisements; and
when an interruption during travel operation has occurred, recalculating the number of playbacks of the advertisements based on a remaining time of the advertisement playable time and a time of occurrence of the interruption and a pre-interruption played-back time of the at least one of the advertisements
at least one of the advertisements played back according to the number of playbacks of the advertisements is for a nearby facility selected based on the real-time information including the vehicle position information.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the limitations describe calculating how many advertisements can fit within a period of time between bus stops (including making adjustments for travel interruptions) and playing advertisements (including one or more location based advertisement) based on the number of playbacks within the available play time which is an advertising activity and therefore falls within the certain methods of organizing human activities category of abstract ideas. Accordingly claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 7 recites the additional limitations of:
[playing back the advertisements] with an advertisement providing device installed in a bus having at least one display device for a least one passenger of the bus and at least one speaker by displaying at least one graphic associated with the at least one of the advertisements on the at least one display device for the at least one passenger and by outputting audio associated with the at least one of the advertisements to the at least one speaker.
the static data displayed by the at least one display device includes information regarding bus stops, bus routes, and bus services, and the dynamic data includes real-time information regarding route information, vehicle position information, and operation information.
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, Examiner notes that the display device and speaker and recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than a generic display/speaker used to output the selected advertisements. At most the recitation of a bus with a generic speaker and display device merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a generic display/speaker system to output ads) and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the specific static and dynamic data displayed is recited at the “apply it” level. There is no recitation of how the dynamic data is collected. Moreover, Applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose any particular sensors or technology used to obtain the dynamic data beyond the disclosure in paragraph [0060] which recites “For example, if a well-known navigation system is installed on board, i.e., in a route bus, position information may be acquired from the navigation system, and advertisements for nearby facilities close to the acquired position may be displayed based on the acquired position information.” At this level of generality, the limitation at most generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic vehicle with a well-known navigation system to provide position information). At this level of generality, displaying advertisements based on the location of the vehicle does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, the same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception is a particular technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent system claims 1 and 8 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 7. The additional limitations in claim 1 (i.e. the processor, memory, and the various units) and the additional limitations in claim 8 (i.e., a computer) add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. The components are merely providing a particular technological environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7, and 8 without significantly more. Specifically, Examiner notes that each of the additional limitations of dependent claims 2-6 only further limit the abstract or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 – Abstract Idea
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 2/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
In this way, any alleged abstract idea is incorporated into a practical application that includes an advertisement providing device installed in a bus having at least one display device that displays static data and dynamic data for at least one passenger of the bus and at least one speaker, the advertisement providing device having a computer with a processor and a memory that causes the computer to function as at least a playback unit playing back at least one of the advertisements according to the number of playbacks of the advertisements, wherein the playback unit plays back the at least one of the advertisements according to the number of playbacks of the advertisements by displaying at least one graphic associated with the at least one of the advertisements on the at least one display device for the at least one passenger of the bus and by outputting audio associated with the at least one of the advertisements to the at least one speaker, wherein the static data displayed by the at least one display device includes information regarding bus stops, bus routes, and bus services, and the dynamic data includes real-time information regarding route information, vehicle position information, and operation information, and at least one of the advertisements played back by the playback unit according to the number of playbacks of the advertisements is for a nearby facility selected based on the real-time information including the vehicle position information (remarks pages 9-10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, Examiner notes that the display device and speaker and recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than a generic display/speaker used to output the selected advertisements. At most the recitation of a bus with a generic speaker and display device merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a generic display/speaker system to output ads) and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the specific static and dynamic data displayed is recited at the “apply it” level. There is no recitation of how the dynamic data is collected. Moreover, Applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose any particular sensors or technology used to obtain the dynamic data beyond the disclosure in paragraph [0060] which recites “For example, if a well-known navigation system is installed on board, i.e., in a route bus, position information may be acquired from the navigation system, and advertisements for nearby facilities close to the acquired position may be displayed based on the acquired position information.” At this level of generality, the limitation at most generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic vehicle with a well-known navigation system to provide position information). At this level of generality, displaying advertisements based on the location of the vehicle does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication 20090112723 (“Gottesman”) discloses determining the interval for message playback and waiting for the time period between one or more bus stops
US Patent Application Publication Number 20080221753 (“Kellner”) discloses selecting audio content based on the remaining travel time estimated based on driving conditions
US Patent Application Publication Number 20150031400 (“Tian”) discloses providing relevant location-based content based on the user's current or predicted proximities to each of the various bus stops
US Patent Application Publication Number 20120290397 (“Cortegiano”) discloses playing advertisements cording to a predetermined priority scheme.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20090106442 (“Liu”) discloses determining a priority order of the advertisements in the advertisement playing queue
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622