DETAILED ACTION
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
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 12/12/2025.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6 are currently amended.
Claim 7 is new.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2024-036169, filed on 03/08/2024.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
An information processing device that provides content including advertisement content and non-advertisement content to a passenger of a traveling body, the information processing device comprising:
a controller, including at least a processor, configured to:
obtain position information via a GPS signal receiving section and vehicle information via a controller area network (CAN) connection, the vehicle information including at least one of a vehicle speed, acceleration, accelerator pedal operation, brake pedal operation, and steering wheel operation,
determine, via a first determination section, whether the traveling body is traveling or the traveling body has stopped traveling based on changes in the position information and/or vehicle information obtained; and
determine, via a second determining section, on a basis of whether a first time period elapsed from a timing of starting provision of the non-advertisement content is a given first suspension time period, whether to permit suspension of provision of the non-advertisement content, and
provision of the non-advertisement content being suspended and provision of the advertisement content being started, in a case where (a) the first determining section determines that the traveling body has stopped traveling while the non-advertisement content is being provided and (b) the second determining section determines to permit suspension of provision of the non-advertisement content.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising activity. Advertising falls within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising is related to commerce and economy; a commercial interaction because the claims explicitly recite an advertising activity; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) outlined above are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment). The courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-3 and 5, and 7 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of “wherein the controller is further configured to”, “via a third determining section”, “the first determining section”, and “the third determining section”. Claim 3 recites the additional elements of “the first determining section” and “the third determining section”. Claim 5 recites the additional elements of “A vehicle comprising an information processing device as recited in claim 1.” Claim 7 recites the additional elements “from an external server” and “the second determining section”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 4 recites (additional elements underlined):
A content switching method that switches content which is to be provided to a passenger of a traveling body between advertisement content and non-advertisement content, the content switching method comprising:
obtaining position information via a GPS signal receiving section and vehicle information via a controller area network (CAN) connection, the vehicle information including at least one of vehicle speed, acceleration, accelerator pedal, brake pedal operation, and steering wheel operation; and
suspending provision of the non-advertisement content and starting provision of the advertisement content, in a case where (a) the traveling body stops, based on changes in the position information and/or vehicle information obtained, while the non-advertisement content is being provided and (b) a time period elapsed from a timing of starting provision of the non-advertisement content is a given time period1.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 4 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mental process and certain methods of organizing human activities). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 4 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 recite (additional elements underlined):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a program for providing content including advertisement content and non-advertisement content to a passenger of a traveling body stored therein, the program causing a computer to execute a process of:
obtaining position information via a GPS signal receiving section and vehicle information via a controller area network (CAN) connection, the vehicle information including at least one of vehicle speed, acceleration, accelerator pedal operation, brake pedal operation, and steering wheel operation,
determining, via a first determining section, whether the traveling body is traveling or the traveling body has stopped traveling based on changes in the position information and/or vehicle information obtained; and
determining, via a second determining section, on a basis of whether a first time period elapsed from a timing of starting provision of the non-advertisement content is a given first suspension time period, whether to permit suspension of provision of the non-advertisement content, and
provision of the non-advertisement content being suspended and provision of the advertisement content being started, in a case where (a) the first determining section determines that the traveling body has stopped traveling while the non-advertisement content is being provided and (b) the second determining section determines to permit suspension of provision of the non-advertisement content.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 6 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mental process and certain methods of organizing human activities). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 6 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after an exhaustive search, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Cho et al. (US 2022/0012776 A1) discloses an apparatus and method for using connected vehicles as an advertisement platform. Cho et al. also discloses presenting advertisements in response to determining a vehicle has stopped. However, Cho et al. does not appear to disclose the limitations: determining, on a basis of whether a first time period elapsed from a timing of starting position of the non-advertisement content is a given first suspension time period, whether to permit suspension of provision of the non-advertisement content; provision of the non-advertisement content being suspended and provision of the advertisement content being started, in a case where (a) the first determining section determines that the traveling body has stopped traveling while the non-advertisement content is being provided and (b) the second determining section determines to permit suspension of provision of the non-advertisement content as claimed.
Honda Motor Co. (JP 2021-039503 A) discloses the concept of determining whether or not a vehicle has stopped, and switching between non-advertisement content and advertisement content. However, Honda Motor Co. also does not appear to disclose the above limitations.
Kim et al. (US 2016/0140613 A1) discloses an advertisement providing system may include a telematics terminal and a telematics server. The telematics server may include a communication server configured to perform wireless communication with the telematics terminal; a database server including a map database, a traffic light database, an advertisement database, and a user database; and a processing server configured to determine whether a vehicle is in a stopped state based on vehicle location information, and calculate an expected amount of stopped time of the vehicle based on the vehicle location information and information stored in the database server when the vehicle is in the stopped state. The processing server may search the advertisement database for advertisement information that corresponds to the vehicle location and the expected amount of stopped time, and transmit the advertisement information to the telematics terminal. However, Kim et al. also does not appear to disclose the above limitations.
Han et al. (US 2019/0080356 A1) discloses the concept of displaying advertisements in a vehicle when the vehicle has stopped.
Takanashi et al. (US 2019/0355019) discloses the concept presenting advertisements based on vehicle speed (see ¶ 191). However, Takanashi also does not appear to disclose the above limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument: “Applicant respectfully submits that this amendment further clarifies the overall
configuration of the device, utilizing specific hardware, that advantageously allows for, e.g., the
first determining section to determine whether the traveling body is traveling or stopped such
that, when the determination is made that the traveling body is stopped, the subsequent second determining can be performed and advertising content can be provided while the traveling body is stopped even without estimating a time in which the traveling body stops. That is, more specifically, Applicant respectfully submits that this amendment clarifies the overall configuration and utilization of specific hardware for the information processing device that advantageously allows for, in a case in which the provision of non-advertisement content is suspended and the provision of advertisement content is started while the traveling body is stopped, if the provision of the non-advertisement content is suspended after the non- advertisement content has been provided up to a good separation in the non-advertisement content, the possibility of giving the passenger an uncomfortable feeling and/or a strange feeling can be decreased. See, e.g., Applicant's Fig. 4. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 clearly articulates a practical application of the information processing and its incorporation with specific hardware, and provides a concrete solution to the technical problem in the field (i.e., namely, that the claimed invention allows for it to be "possible to provide advertisement content while a traveling body stops, even without estimating a time in which the traveling body stops," in conjunction with a "decrease [in] the possibility of giving the passenger an uncomfortable feeling and/or a strange feeling"). See, e.g., Applicant's originally-filed specification at least at paras. [0008], [0024], [0030], and [0032]. Additionally, as Applicant incorporating in the controller and processor, as well as the system's ability to receive at least a GPS signal and vehicle information via a CAN connection, this clarifies that the overall device and/or methods are not directed to a system that "can be merely software."
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Second, the alleged improvement is entirely in the realm of the abstract idea. Unlike in DDR in which the claimed invention solved the business challenge of retaining website visitors that is particular to the Internet, here the claimed invention amounts to merely reciting the performance of a business practice along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. The claimed invention here is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. “We caution, however, that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent” (see p. 22 of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Similar to SAP America Inc. v. InvestPic (Fed. Cir. 2018), the advance here lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea (i.e., improvement to advertising), with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.
Third, “eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a ‘useful, concrete, and tangible result” (MPEP 2106(I)).
Fourth, the incorporation of the controller and processor as well as the system’s ability to receive at least GPS signal and vehicle information via a CAN connection does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. As explained above, the additional elements “via a GPS signal receiving section” and “via a controller area network (CAN) connection” amount to adding the words “apply it”.
Therefore, the claims as currently amended still do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
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 SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 The Examiner notes that this limitation is not given patentable weight because it is considered a contingent limitation. This limitation is only required to be performed if the traveling body stops, based on changes in the position information and/or vehicle information obtained, while the non-advertisement content is being provided and a time period elapsed from a timing of starting provision of the non-advertisement content is a given time period. However, for the sake of advancing prosecution, all limitations are considered and addressed.