Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is in response to communication filed on 3/3/2025.
Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
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.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-9 and 10-18 recite a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Claim 1 recites:
Receiving at a data center advertisement messages to be displayed, wherein the advertisement messages comprise a first set of advertisement messages, each advertisement message in the first set of advertisement messages being displayable at one or more retail establishments for a first fee;
combining the advertisement messages to be displayed to produce a set of aggregated messages; sending the set of aggregated messages to the retail establishment and/or other retail establishments, causing the aggregated message to be integrated in a display window such that the advertisement messages appear on a portion of a display in the retail establishment is playing and the retail establishment is selling alcoholic beverages;
collecting, on behalf of the data center, the first fees for advertisement messages in the first set of advertisement messages; and preventing any portion of the first fee collected for the one of the first set of advertisement messages from being shared with retail establishment(s) at which the associated advertisement messages are displayed in order to comply with legal regulations relating to alcoholic beverages,
wherein the legal regulations relating to alcoholic beverages pertain to how revenue from alcoholic beverage related advertisements may be shared among different parties involved in such advertisements.
The above limitations recite how alcoholic beverage related advertisements may be shared among different parties involved in such advertisements. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover advertising, marketing or sales activities and fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A claim 1 is an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Claim 10 recites:
receiving, at a data center, advertisement messages to be displayed based on receipt of advertising fees, wherein the advertisements comprise a first advertisement message received from a first advertising provider, the first advertisement message being alcohol-related and being displayable at a display device in retail establishments;
combining the advertisement messages to be displayed to produce an aggregated message;
sending the aggregated message from the data center to a display, the aggregated messages being integratable in a display window,
wherein a service fee is collected from a retailer and the first advertisement message is shown on the display device based on advertisement fees while complying with legal regulations relating to alcoholic beverages, and the legal regulations relating to alcoholic beverages pertain to how revenue from alcoholic beverage related advertisements may be shared.
The above limitations recite how alcoholic beverage related advertisements may be shared among different parties involved in such advertisements. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover advertising, marketing or sales activities and fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A claim 1 is an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, returning to representative claims 1 and 10, the claims recite packet data network, processor, video signal
for performing generic computer component for determining how alcoholic beverage related advertisements may be shared among different parties involved in such advertisements and do not add more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1 and 10 do not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of recite packet data network, processor, video signal, alone and in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the limitations computer, processing engine, artificial intelligence engine, network connection, queuing application, it is noted that sending information over a network has been recognized in the courts as being Well Understood Routine and Conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. There’re no additional elements that transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further abstract limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,271,912. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 10-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,912.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No.11,645,662. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims further recite preventing the fees from being shared. It is old and well known to prevent fees to be shared, such as Rule 5.4 of the ABA rules of professional conduct bans attorneys from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers, in order to comply with legal regulations.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No.11,074,593. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims further recite preventing the fees from being shared. It is old and well known to prevent fees to be shared, such as Rule 5.4 of the ABA rules of professional conduct bans attorneys from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers, in order to comply with legal regulations.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,290,006.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed over prior art of record.
The invention pertains to Fig. 2, in which a retailer uses a remote client for sending a message 223 to data center 200, and the message 223 may include content to be displayed on display 217. The data center 200 may combine an advertising message 263 with the message 223 to produce an aggregated message 207, and then send the aggregated message 207 to a display server 210, which causes the aggregated message 207 to be integrated with a video feed.
The closest prior art of record Roberts et al.(2008/0155588) teaches content producers and advertisers may upload content to a content host subsystem over at least one network, and the stored content may be distributed to consumers and be provided in response to consumer requests. See para. [0014]. In particular, Roberts teaches advertising content may be combined with media content (see para. [0024]), and media contents from different content producers may be stitched together (see para. [0070]). Roberts teaches that content producers and advertisers may upload content to a content host subsystem over at least one network, and the stored content may be distributed to consumers and be provided in response to consumer requests. See para. [0014]. In particular, Roberts teaches advertising content may be combined with media content (see para. [0024]), and media contents from different content producers may be stitched together (see para. [0070]). However, Roberts does not teach that a first advertisement message from a first advertising provider is combined with another message from a remote client at a retail establishment to produce an aggregated message to be displayed on a display device in the retail establishment, let alone that the other message sent from the remote client to the data center includes content to be displayed on the display device in the retail establishment. Nor does Roberts teach causing the aggregated message to be integrated in a display window with a streaming video signal.
Yarmolich (2009/0168901) teaches “each video display unit will have its own apparatus for combining video/audio signals with data signals, or that a single apparatus will control the video display units for a particular locality (i.e. for a restaurant, bar, or airport, etc.).” See para. [0025]. Thus, Yarmolich’s apparatus is either associated with each single display unit at a particular locality or associated with multiple display units at a particular locality. However Yarmolich does not teach that a first advertisement message from a first advertising provider is combined with another message from a remote client at a retail establishment to produce an aggregated message to be displayed on a display device in the retail establishment, let alone that the other message sent from the remote client to the data center includes content to be displayed on the display device in the retail establishment. Nor does Roberts teach causing the aggregated message to be integrated in a display window with a streaming video signal.
Other refences of record:
JP 2004/030469 teaches providing an information terminal device by which a user can directly select desired contents from contents information without being conscious of the diversification of an infrastructure and media, and which attains the remarkable improvement in handleability. SOLUTION; This information terminal device 10 provided with a reproducing means 16 for reproducing contents is equipped with: a contents DB preparing means for preparing a contents DB 19a including contents relevant information related to the contents and storage place information about the contents storage; an image generation means for an image from which the user can directly select his/her desired contents from the contents relevant information on the basis of data of the contents DB 19a prepared by the contents DB preparing means; and a display processing means for displaying the image generated by the image generating means on a displaying means.
IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin “Safe Mechanism for Installing Operating System Updates with Applications” teaches a safe mechanism for updating operating system modules and components of prerequisite applications when an application program is installed on a computer system. Updates to the operating system or other prerequisite components can be performed on a module by module basis to avoid the requirement to install a complete cumulative service package. The system updates can be integrated with logs and backups maintained by standard service tools. When an application that updated the operating system or another prerequisite component is removed, the updates it performed can be safely removed with it, leaving the system in a stable state. Dependencies that multiple applications have on upgrades to the same system modules, possibly to different-service levels, are respected.
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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 at 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights