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 .
This Office Action is in response to Application 19/048,081 filed on 02/07/2025.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and examined below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acquisition unit in claims 1 and 11,” “storage unit in claims 1 and 11,” “determination unit in claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, and 13,” selection unit in claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 9-13,” “display control unit in claims 1 and 11,” and “a decision unit in claim 8.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Contingent Limitations
The Examiner notes that broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04. Here, the claims recite the following contingent limitations:
Claim 1 “wherein, in a case that at least a first person and a second person are included in the captured image, the selection unit selects a second classification when performing: a first determination that involves determining that track record of a first advertisement which is the advertisement associated with a first classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the first person exceeds a first reference value which is the reference value associated with the first classification, and a second determination that involves determining that track record of a second advertisement which is the advertisement associated with the second classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the second person does not exceed a second reference value which is the reference value associated with the second classification.”
Claim 2 “wherein the second determination is performed after the first determination, and the second determination being performed after the first determination is determined on the basis of at least one of respective orientations of respective faces of the first person and the second person included in the captured image and respective distances of the first person and the second person included in the captured image from the display device.” The above limitation is a contingent limitation because it refers to the contingent limitations of claim 1.
Claim 3 “wherein, in a case that the first person and the second person are included in the captured image and a case where the determination unit determines that both the attribute of the first person and the attribute of the second person fall under one of the first classification and the second classification, the selection unit selects the one even if the track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen associated with the one exceeds the reference value associated with the one.”
Claim 5 “wherein, in a case that a third person is included in the captured image together with the first person and the second person, the selection unit selects a third classification when performing: the first determination , a third determination that involves determining that the track record of the second advertisement exceeds the second reference value, and a fourth determination that involves determining that track record of a third advertisement which is the advertisement associated with the third classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the third person does not exceed a third reference value which is the reference value associated with the third classification.”
Claim 6 “wherein, in a case that at least the first person and the second person are included in the captured image, the selection unit selects the first classification when performing a fifth determination that involves determining that the track record of the first advertisement does not exceed the first reference value.”
Claim 9 “wherein, in a case that a person is not included in the captured image, the selection unit selects any of the first classification and the second classification on the basis of the track record of the first advertisement, the track record of the second advertisement, the first reference value, and the second reference value.”
Claim 10 “wherein, in a case that a person is not included in the captured image, the selection unit selects the first classification in a case that a difference between the track record of the first advertisement and the first reference value is less than a difference between the track record of the second advertisement and the second reference value, and the selection unit selects the second classification in a case that the difference between the track record of the first advertisement and the first reference value is equal to or greater than the difference between the track record of the second advertisement and the second reference value.”
Claim 11 “wherein, in a case that at least a first person is included in the captured image, the selection unit selects any of the plurality of classifications in accordance with different conditions depending on whether a person other than the first person is included in the captured image when the track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen associated with a first classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the first person exceeds a first reference value which is the reference value associated with the first classification.”
Claim 12 “wherein, in a case that a person other than the first person is not included in the captured image, the selection unit selects the first classification even if the track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen associated with the first classification exceeds the first reference value.”
Claim 13 “wherein, in a case that a second person is included in the captured image together with the first person and the track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen associated with the first classification determined by the determination unit with respect to the attribute of the first person exceeds the first reference value associated with the first classification, the selection unit determines whether track record of a second advertisement which is the advertisement associated with a second classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the second person does not exceed a second reference value which is the reference value associated with the second classification, and selects any of the plurality of classifications in accordance with a result of the determination.”
Claim 14 “wherein, in a case that at least a first person and a second person are included in the captured image, the selection step includes selecting a second classification when performing a first determination that involves determining that track record of a first advertisement which is the advertisement associated with a first classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the first person exceeds a first reference value which is the reference value associated with the first classification among reference values associated with each of the plurality of classifications, and a second determination that involves determining that track record of a second advertisement which is the advertisement associated with the second classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the second person does not exceed a second reference value which is the reference value associated with the second classification.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the selection unit selects the one even if the track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen associated with the one exceeds the reference value associated with the one.” It is unclear what is meant by “the one”, let alone, selecting “the one” even if the track record of the advertisement displayed on the screen associated with “the one” exceeds the reference value associated with “the one”. The Examiner suggests amending the above limitation to recite “the selection unit selects classification even if the track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen associated with the one classification exceeds the reference value associated with the one classification” which is consistent with paragraph 111 of the published specification.
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 1-14 is/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 nature phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-14 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 comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires a captured image obtained by capturing an image of an image capturing region including a position at which a display screen of a display device is visible;
a storage unit that stores a reference value associated with each of a plurality of classifications determined in advance for an attribute of a viewer of an advertisement displayed on the display screen;
a determination unit that determines which of the plurality of classifications an attribute of a person included in the captured image falls under;
a selection unit that selects any of the plurality of classifications on the basis of at least track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen and a determination result of the determination unit; and
a display control unit that causes the display screen to display the advertisement associated with the classification selected by the selection unit,
wherein, in a case that at least a first person and a second person are included in the captured image, the selection unit selects a second classification when performing:
a first determination that involves determining that track record of a first advertisement which is the advertisement associated with a first classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the first person exceeds a first reference value which is the reference value associated with the first classification, and
a second determination that involves determining that track record of a second advertisement which is the advertisement associated with the second classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the second person does not exceed a second reference value which is the reference value associated with the second classification.
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, judgment, 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 above 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/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall 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/marketing is related to commerce and economy. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations). The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea are also considered mathematical concepts at least because the above limitations select a second classification when the track record of the first advertisement exceeds a first reference value, and the track record of the second advertisement does not exceed the second reference value. These limitations are similar to “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” which was determined to be a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept (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 element(s) “obtained by capturing an image” also amount(s) to adding insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 element “obtained by capturing an image” also amounts to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field as evidenced by at least Col. 1 lines 24-35 of US Patent No. 9,451,676 B1, Col. 6 lines 8-12 of US Patent No. 9,126,109 B2, ¶ 48 of US 2011/0027085 A1, and/or ¶ 59 of US 2019/0033209 A1. With regard to the remaining additional elements, they 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 Prong Two 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. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-10 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 2 recites the additional element “from the display device.” Claim 3 recites the additional elements “the determination unit,” “the selection unit,” and “on the display screen.” Claim 5 recites the additional elements “the selection unit” and “by the determination unit.” Claim 6 recites the additional element “the selection unit.” Claim 7 recites the additional element “to the display device.” Claim 8 recites the additional elements “a decision unit that” and “the determination unit.” Claim 9 recites the additional element “the selection unit.” Claim 10 recites the additional element “the selection unit.” 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 does not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, 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 11 recites (additional elements underlined):
An information processing device comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires a captured image obtained by capturing an image of an image capturing region including a position at which a display screen of a display device is visible;
a storage unit that stores a plurality of reference values associated with a plurality of classifications determined in advance for an attribute of a viewer of an advertisement displayed on the display screen;
a determination unit that determines which of the plurality of classifications an attribute of a person included in the captured image falls under;
a selection unit that selects any of the plurality of classifications on the basis of at least track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen and a determination result of the determination unit; and
a display control unit that causes the display screen to display the advertisement associated with the classification selected by the selection unit,
wherein, in a case that at least a first person is included in the captured image, the selection unit selects any of the plurality of classifications in accordance with different conditions depending on whether a person other than the first person is included in the captured image when the track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen associated with a first classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the first person exceeds a first reference value which is the reference value associated with the first classification.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mental process, certain methods of organizing human activities, and mathematical concepts). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 12-13 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 11 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 12 recites the additional elements “the selection unit” and “on the display screen.” Claim 13 recites the additional elements “on the display screen,” “by the determination unit,” “the selection unit.” 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 14 recites (additional elements underlined):
An information processing method comprising:
an acquisition step of acquiring a captured image obtained by capturing an image of an image capturing region including a position at which a display screen of a display device is visible;
a determination unit determining which of a plurality of classifications determined in advance an attribute of a person included in the captured image falls under, for an attribute of a viewer of an advertisement displayed on the display screen;
a selection step of selecting any of the plurality of classifications on the basis of at least track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen and a determination result of the determination unit; and
a display control step of causing the display screen to display the advertisement associated with the classification selected in the selection step,
wherein, in a case that at least a first person and a second person are included in the captured image, the selection step includes selecting a second classification when performing a first determination that involves determining that track record of a first advertisement which is the advertisement associated with a first classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the first person exceeds a first reference value which is the reference value associated with the first classification among reference values associated with each of the plurality of classifications, and
a second determination that involves determining that track record of a second advertisement which is the advertisement associated with the second classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the second person does not exceed a second reference value which is the reference value associated with the second classification.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 14 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mental process, certain methods of organizing human activities, and mathematical concepts). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 14 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsuchida (US 2021/0304257 A1, hereinafter “Tsuchida”).
As per Claim 14, Tsuchida discloses An information processing method comprising (¶ 2 “The present disclosure relates to an information processing device, an information processing system, and an information processing method, and, for example, relates to an information processing device used for presenting related information related to advertisements.”):
an acquisition step of acquiring a captured image obtained by capturing an image of an image capturing region including a position at which a display screen of a display device is visible (¶ 27 “Based on detection information acquired from a detection unit 250 of the terminal device 20, the information processing device 10 determines an attribute of an approaching person who may have an interest in display content displayed on a display unit 260 installed in association with the detection unit 250, and selects related content related to the display content with reference to related content data indicating related content information. The detection unit 250 is installed in association with each of the individual terminal devices 20, and acquires the detection information used for detecting the approaching person and determining an attribute of the detected approaching person. The detection unit 250 is, for example, a camera that captures an image as the detection information.” ¶ 67 “The person detection unit 224 determines whether a person present within a predetermined range from the display unit 260 is detected, based on the detection information input from the detection unit 250. The detection information includes, for example, image data indicating an image in a field of view of an area facing the display unit 260. The person detection unit 224 detects one person or two or more persons, for example, by performing existing image recognition processing on the image data. At this stage, because this is sufficient to determine the presence or absence of the person, image recognition processing as complex as that of the person determination unit 126 of the information processing device 10 is not required. Detection information other than an image may be input to the person detection unit 224, and the person detection unit 224 may detect the person on the basis of the input detection information.” ¶ 75 “The detection unit 250 includes, for example, a camera. The camera functions as an image capturing, unit that captures an image including the predetermined range in front of the display unit 260 as the field of view. The detection unit 250 may include either a microphone, an input device, or a motion sensor, or a predetermined combination of these.” Also see Figure 7);
a determination unit determining which of a plurality of classifications determined in advance an attribute of a person included in the captured image falls under, for an attribute of a viewer of an advertisement displayed on the display screen (¶ 36 “The person determination unit 126 determines an attribute of the detected interested person. The person determination unit 126 determines one or both of gender and age group as the attribute of the interested person by using, for example, existing image recognition processing on image data indicating an image of the head (face) of the interested person included in the detection information. The person determination unit 126 outputs attribute information indicating the determined attribute to the content selection unit 128.” ¶ 67 “The person detection unit 224 determines whether a person present within a predetermined range from the display unit 260 is detected, based on the detection information input from the detection unit 250. The detection information includes, for example, image data indicating an image in a field of view of an area facing the display unit 260. The person detection unit 224 detects one person or two or more persons, for example, by performing existing image recognition processing on the image data. At this stage, because this is sufficient to determine the presence or absence of the person, image recognition processing as complex as that of the person determination unit 126 of the information processing device 10 is not required. Detection information other than an image may be input to the person detection unit 224, and the person detection unit 224 may detect the person on the basis of the input detection information.” ¶ 102 “Note that the number of persons detected on the basis of the detection information is not limited to one, and may be a plurality of persons. In that case, the plurality of persons having adjacent face regions within a predetermined distance are determined to be a group. The person determination unit 126 may determine, as a representative person, any one of the interested persons among the plurality of persons belonging to each of the groups, and may determine the attribute of the determined representative person. For example, the person determination unit 126 determines, as the representative person, one of the persons having the largest face size among the persons determined as the interested persons in the image. Alternatively, the person determination unit 126 may determine, as the representative person, a person who has been determined to be the interested person for the longest time period among the group of the plurality of detected people.” ¶ 103 “The person determination unit 126 may determine a groan attribute of the group consisting of the plurality of persons by using group attribute data indicating predetermined rules, based on a set of attributes of each of the plurality of interested persons belonging to each of the groups. Using the group attribute data exemplified in FIG. 8, when a set of attributes determined for each of the interested persons matches a condition that one or more of the interested persons is in their teens (either male or female) and one or both of a male in his thirties and a female in her thirties belong to the group, the person determination unit 126 determines the group attribute to be a family with children. Further, the person determination unit 126 determines an attribute of a group matching a condition that one man (any age) and one woman (any age) belong to the group to be a romantic couple. For example, the person determination unit 126 determines a group matching a condition that the number of women is larger than the number of men among the plurality of interested persons to be a group of women.” Also see at least Figure 7 and ¶¶ 104-105.);
a selection step of selecting any of the plurality of classifications on the basis of at least track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen and a determination result of the determination unit (¶ 103 “The person determination unit 126 may determine a groan attribute of the group consisting of the plurality of persons by using group attribute data indicating predetermined rules, based on a set of attributes of each of the plurality of interested persons belonging to each of the groups. Using the group attribute data exemplified in FIG. 8, when a set of attributes determined for each of the interested persons matches a condition that one or more of the interested persons is in their teens (either male or female) and one or both of a male in his thirties and a female in her thirties belong to the group, the person determination unit 126 determines the group attribute to be a family with children. Further, the person determination unit 126 determines an attribute of a group matching a condition that one man (any age) and one woman (any age) belong to the group to be a romantic couple. For example, the person determination unit 126 determines a group matching a condition that the number of women is larger than the number of men among the plurality of interested persons to be a group of women.” Also see at least ¶¶ 104-105 and citations above.); and
a display control step of causing the display screen to display the advertisement associated with the classification selected in the selection step (¶ 92 “ When the display unit 260 is displaying an image 102 of an advertisement as exemplified in FIG. 7, it is assumed that a visitor approaches the display unit 260 while viewing the image 102. According to the processing illustrated in FIG. 6, the person detection unit 224 detects the approach of the person. The person determination unit 126 determines that the approaching visitor is an interested person, and determines, as the attribute of the person, that the visitor is a female in her twenties, for example. An ID “01” is notified to the content selection unit 128 as the advertisement ID of the image 102, and the content selection unit 128 refers to the advertisement management data and determines the determined attribute to be “target attribute 1”. The content selection unit 128 refers to the response condition data and identifies the related content ID “1” corresponding to a set of the advertisement ID “1” and the “target attribute 1”. The content selection unit 128 refers to the related content management data and provides the terminal device 20 with related content data indicating a guidance screen 104 as the related content data corresponding to the related content ID “1”, which is stored in a display file “fashion_for_20s_women”and is designed to provide guidance with respect to a fashion store for women in their twenties. The display control unit 222 stops displaying the image 102 and starts displaying the guidance screen 104 based on the related content data provided from the content selection unit 128. As a result, the guidance screen 104 is provided as the related content corresponding to the attribute of a person who has shown an interest in the advertisement, which has been displayed as a screen for attracting customers.” ¶ 104 “In the candidate content management data (the advertisement management data), the group attribute can also be set as the target attribute, which is the target of the candidate content. In the advertisement management data exemplified in FIG. 9, for an advertisement ID “3”, the group attribute “family with children” is set as a target attribute 3. In the response condition data, a set of the candidate content (the advertisement ID) and the group attribute, which serves as the target attribute, can be set as a response condition in association with the related content corresponding to the response condition. In the response condition data exemplified in FIG. 10, for the response ID “7”, a set of the advertisement ID “3” and the “target attribute 3” is set as a response condition in association with the related content ID “7”. In the related content management data, the related content can be set in association with the related content ID corresponding to each of the group attributes. In the related content management data exemplified in FIG. 11, the related content name “cafe menu for family” and the display file “cafe_menu_for_family” are set for the related content ID “7”.” ¶ 105 “By referring to the above-described candidate content management data, response condition data, and related content management data, the content selection unit 128 can identify the related content corresponding to the set of the candidate content displayed as the display content and the determined group attribute. For example, while the advertisement of the cafe identified by the advertisement ID “3” is being displayed, when a family with children continues to approach the display unit 260 for a predetermined time period or longer, the display unit 260 switches the screen to a menu guidance screen and displays the related content named as “cafe menu for family.” As a result, related content in which all members of the group may have an interest is provided.” Claim 5 “wherein the person determination unit determines a group attribute of a group consisting of no less than two persons appearing in the image, based on an attribute of each of the no less than two persons, and the content selection unit refers to the related content information including a set of the candidate content and the group attribute as the set, and selects the related content.” Also see at least Figure 7 and ¶¶ 102-104.),
wherein, in a case that at least a first person and a second person are included in the captured image, the selection step includes selecting a second classification when performing a first determination that involves determining that track record of a first advertisement which is the advertisement associated with a first classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the first person exceeds a first reference value which is the reference value associated with the first classification among reference values associated with each of the plurality of classifications (The Examiner notes that this limitation is a contingent limitation that is not required to be performed if the second person is not included in the captured image. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See MPEP 2111.04.), and
a second determination that involves determining that track record of a second advertisement which is the advertisement associated with the second classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the second person does not exceed a second reference value which is the reference value associated with the second classification (The Examiner notes that this limitation is a contingent limitation that is not required to be performed if the second person is not included in the captured image. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See MPEP 2111.04.).
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner notes that after an exhaustive search on claims 1-13, they are found to recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Tsuchida (US 2021/0304257 A1) discloses the concept of acquiring a captured image obtained by capturing an image of an image capturing region including a position at which a display screen of a display device is visible; and determining which of a plurality of classifications an attribute of a person included in the captured image falls under; displaying the advertisement associated with the selected classification.
Mongeau (US 2022/0148036 A1) discloses the concept of storing a plurality of reference values associated with a plurality of classifications determined in advance for an attribute of a viewer of an advertisement displayed on the display screen.
Sharma et al. (US 2008/0109397 A1) discloses a system and framework for automatically measuring and correlating visual characteristics of people and accumulating the data for the purpose of demographic and behavior analysis. The demographic and behavior characteristics of people are extracted from a sequence of images using techniques from computer vision. The demographic and behavior characteristics are combined with a timestamp and a location marker to provide a feature vector of a person at a particular time at a particular location. These feature vectors are then accumulated and aggregated automatically in order to generate a data set that can be statistically analyzed, data mined and/or queried.
Kobayashi (US 2011/0293148 A1) discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a content determination program causes a computer to perform processes of detecting persons appearing in chronologically photographed images, detecting a position of each of the persons, calculating a moving velocity of each of the persons, setting a group including a part of the persons on the basis of the moving velocities and the positions, acquiring attribute information of the group on the basis of a person image corresponding to the each of the part of the persons included in the group, and determining, on the basis of a correspondence relationship between the attribute information of the group and attribute information of content images stored in a storage unit, one of the content images to be projected to a position which each of the part of the persons of the group recognizes.
Sukegawa et al. (US 2007/0189585 A1) discloses a person identification device obtaining information including biometric information of a person, detecting the biometric information of at least one person from the obtained information, collates each detected biometric information with the biometric information of at least one registrant associated with group information and stored in a storage unit to thereby identify the person having the biometric information detected from the obtained information, classifies a plurality of successively identified persons into group candidates based on predetermined conditions, divides the persons of the group candidates into groups based on the group information of each person stored in the storage unit, and outputs a grouping result to an external device.
Saurabh et al. (US Patent No. 11,367,083 B1) discloses a method and system for evaluating relative effectiveness of content in a digital signage network, using a series of measurements to compare and evaluate different contents. The measurements are performed on a plurality of input images of the people captured by a plurality of means for capturing images in the vicinity of at least a digital signage. The present invention is a content rating system based on how the audience responds to the digital content in the intended context of digital media network in-store or in other public viewing areas. The present invention allows the measurement of the response to the content for different segments, further allowing for better planning of the content and optimizing the advertising dollars.
Bhat et al. (US 2019/0378171 A1) discloses a system, method, and machine readable media for targeted advertising. One of more images of individuals in a location in a facility are captured with an imaging device. Face detection is performed on the one or more images. Based on a face detection result, Convolutional Neural Network models are used to determine a gender and estimate an age of each detected face. A targeted audience is determined, based on pre-determined criteria using the age estimation and gender identification of each detected face. A relevant advertisement is selected for the targeted audience for display on a display device. The relevant advertisement may be selected based at least in part on a footfall score indicative of customer traffic in the facility.
Yamazaki (US 2010/0082514 A1) discloses the concept of counting a number of times that an advertisement is displayed.
While the prior art teach some of the elements of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at Applicant’s claimed invention unless one was using Applicant’s claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight. Additionally, the prior arts do not disclose at least the following limitations when viewed in context of the claimed invention as a whole: “wherein, in a case that at least a first person and a second person are included in the captured image, the selection unit selects a second classification when performing: a first determination that involves determining that track record of a first advertisement which is the advertisement associated with a first classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the first person exceeds a first reference value which is the reference value associated with the first classification, and a second determination that involves determining that track record of a second advertisement which is the advertisement associated with the second classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the second person does not exceed a second reference value which is the reference value associated with the second classification” as recited in claim 1, “wherein, in a case that at least a first person is included in the captured image, the selection unit selects any of the plurality of classifications in accordance with different conditions depending on whether a person other than the first person is included in the captured image when the track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen associated with a first classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the first person exceeds a first reference value which is the reference value associated with the first classification” as recited in claim 11, or “wherein, in a case that a second person is included in the captured image together with the first person and the track record of the advertisement displayed on the display screen associated with the first classification determined by the determination unit with respect to the attribute of the first person exceeds the first reference value associated with the first classification, the selection unit determines whether track record of a second advertisement which is the advertisement associated with a second classification determined by the determination unit with respect to an attribute of the second person does not exceed a second reference value which is the reference value associated with the second classification, and selects any of the plurality of classifications in accordance with a result of the determination” as recited in claim 13.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights