AIA
Claims 1-20 examined
PNG
media_image1.png
106
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ANTICIPATION DOUBLE PATENTING
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
The claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims of US Serial No. 17581293
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
17581293
19088208
1. A method for performing dynamic digital signage campaign optimization, the method comprising: storing in a memory of a management platform screen data associated to a plurality of screens under control of the management platform, the screen data comprising screen characteristic data defining characteristics of each screen under the control of the management platform, the screen data further comprising screen activity data for at least one active campaign, the screen activity data comprising for each screen at least one of the following: time periods of content display at the screen for the at least one active campaign, duration of the content displayed for the at least one active campaign, number of repetitions in a loop of the screen for the at least one active campaign, percentage of occupation of the loop of the screen for the at least one active campaign, and percentage of occupation of the loop of the screen by all active campaigns; storing in the memory of the management platform requirements of the at least one active campaign, the requirements of the at least one active campaign comprising at least one campaign goal and at least one campaign constraint, the at least one campaign constraint comprising at least one of the following: a location of the screens used for the active campaign, a number of screens used for the active campaign, and time periods for performing the active campaign; receiving by a processing unit of the management platform requirements of a candidate campaign, the requirements of the candidate campaign comprising at least one campaign goal and at least one campaign constraint, the at least one campaign constraint comprising at least one of the following: a location of the screens used for the candidate campaign, a number of screens used for the candidate campaign, and time periods for performing the candidate campaign; generating by the processing unit of the management platform a mathematical model based on the requirements of the candidate campaign, the requirements of the at least one active campaign, and at least some of the screen data; transmitting by the processing unit of the management platform the mathematical model to a computational server executing a mathematical solver; receiving by the processing unit of the management platform a mathematical solution generated by the mathematical solver from the computational server, the mathematical solver processing the mathematical model to generate the mathematical solution; generating by the processing unit of the management platform configuration data for the candidate campaign based on the mathematical solution, the configuration data defining a configuration for displaying a content of the candidate campaign on selected screens among the plurality of screens under the control of the management platform; updating by the processing unit of the management platform the screen activity data based on the configuration data of the candidate campaign; and transmitting one or more configuration command to computing devices controlling the display of content on the selected screens, the one or more configuration command being based on the configuration data.
1. A computing device for performing dynamic digital signage campaign optimization, the computing device comprising: at least one communication interface; memory; and a processing unit configured to: store in the memory screen data associated to a plurality of screens under control of the computing device, the screen data comprising screen characteristic data defining characteristics of each screen under the control of the computing device, the screen data further comprising screen activity data for at least one active campaign, the screen activity data comprising for each screen at least one of the following: time periods of content display at the screen for the at least one active campaign, duration of the content displayed for the at least one active campaign, number of repetitions in a loop of the screen for the at least one active campaign, percentage of occupation of the loop of the screen for the at least one active campaign, and percentage of occupation of the loop of the screen by all active campaigns; store in the memory requirements of the at least one active campaign, the requirements of the at least one active campaign comprising at least one campaign goal and at least one campaign constraint, the at least one campaign constraint comprising at least one of the following: a location of the screens used for the active campaign, a number of screens used for the active campaign, and time periods for performing the active campaign; receive requirements of a candidate campaign, the requirements of the candidate campaign comprising at least one campaign goal and at least one campaign constraint, the at least one campaign constraint comprising at least one of the following: a location of the screens used for the candidate campaign and a number of screens used for the candidate campaign, the location of the screens and the number of screens being defined with a degree of flexibility; generate a mathematical model based on the requirements of the candidate campaign, the requirements of the at least one active campaign, and at least some of the screen data; transmit via the at least one communication interface the mathematical model to a computational server executing a mathematical solver; receive via the at least one communication interface a mathematical solution generated by the mathematical solver from the computational server, the mathematical solver processing the mathematical model to generate the mathematical solution; generate configuration data for the candidate campaign based on the mathematical solution, the configuration data defining a configuration for displaying a content of the candidate campaign on selected screens among the plurality of screens under the control of the computing device; update the screen activity data based on the configuration data of the candidate campaign; and transmit via the at least one communication interface one or more configuration commands to computing devices controlling the display of content on the selected screens, the one or more configuration commands being based on the configuration data.
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
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Step 1: (MPEP 2106.03)
The claims and dependents are directed to statutory classes (1 11 machine). The claims herein are directed to subject matter which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception -- law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.04).
Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016)
Independent Claims similar.
Additional elements are generally applied and generic processor, memory, computing device.
CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
Alice clearinghouse for bids via computer
Bilski hedge bids via computer
Here marketing via computer
The Claims: rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) without significantly more.
The claims are directed to CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN BEHAVIOR.
1) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
2) fundamental economic practice and a commercial interaction
3) long-standing commercial practice. The additional elements are claimed at a high level of generality. Applicant simply computer implements a business process, solving a business problem not a technical problem.
Here, the innovative concept is an abstract idea using additional elements which are generic and generally applied. These additional elements do not add significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
The claim says one is to take the idea and “apply it” with generic elements generally applied.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an additional elements – e.g. to perform data gathering, math, mental steps. The additional elements e.g. is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements add MPEP 2106.05 is “iii. Mere automation of manual processes”. See (MPEP 21056.05 “vi. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner”).
Dependent claims
2 – 9, 12-20-- the idea
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim does 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See (MPEP 21056.05 “vi. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner”). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations (those beyond the abstract idea) do not improve the technical field that the abstract idea limitations invoke. Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers" (citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
Here, the claims neither improve the technological infrastructure nor provide particular solutions to challenges. Rather, in ordered combination the claim limitations spell out the steps of budgeting (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘137 patent) using generic technology (storage, computer, medium, processor – stated at a high level of generality Fig 8-9 and corresponding text). In addition to these indisputably generic features, Applicant did not invent any of those features, and the claims do not recite them in a manner that produces generic use of these known features. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When viewed as an ordered combination, the proposed claims recite no more than the sort of generic computer components employed in a customary manner that we have held insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The claim(s) recite(s) calculating how to allocate ads across various displays based on constraints. The idea of calculating how to allocate ads across various displays based on constraints is a mental process, a mathematical calculation which is in the enumerated group of mathematical concepts, or subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors which is a certain method of organizing human activities. Since the claims recite a mental process, a mathematical concept, or a certain method of organizing human activities which each are in the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically as recited in the claims:
-management platform (see claims)
-by a/the processing unit of the management platform (see claims)
- mathematical solver (see claims)
- via the communication interface (see claims)
- computing devices (see claims)
- a customer device (see claims)
-a computational server (see claims)
- a computing device for performing dynamic digital signage campaign optimization, the computing device comprising: at least one communication interface; memory; and a processing unit for:/ the computing device (see claim)
(2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Specifically as recited in the claims mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see claims 1-26)
and (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the electronic advertising display environment (like billboards or public displays)(see claims 1-26)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations not indicative of inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo). Specifically as recited in the claims:
(a) automating mental tasks (see claims 1-26) (see USPTO July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility pages 7 and 11, and from page 11 See Benson, 409 U.S. at 65‐67; Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1275; CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375)
(b) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. using the Internet to gather data (see claims 1-26) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-10.2019](cited herein): 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))
(c) electronic recordkeeping (see claims 1, 4, and 25-26)(see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-10.2019](cited herein): Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)
(d) storing and retrieving information in memory (see claims 1, 4, and 25-26)(see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-10.2019](cited herein): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
(e) presenting offers and gathering statistics (see claims 1-26) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-10.2019](cited herein): OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)
(f) nonlinear optimization functionality (see claim 20)
-Fung et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2004/0181441) which is in the art of decision analysis through historical data in a decision model (see abstract and Figure 1) teaches “ once formulated as a nonlinear optimization problem, the decision model can be optimized by using integer programming, as is known to those skilled in the art” (see paragraph 0119)
-Vinson et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0013396) which is in the art of advertising (see abstract) teaches “ The algorithm can try different combinations of target and non-target exposures (across different target definitions), and calculate the resulting conversion rate. The conversion rate can thus be maximized by such methods as downhill simplex and other nonlinear optimization techniques that are well known to those skilled in the art”
- Miller (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2006/0149604) paragraph 0003 “ Various risk assessment and decision analysis tools, such as decision trees, Monte Carlo simulations, forecasting methods, linear and nonlinear programming optimization methods, and the like are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Such risk assessment and decision analysis tools are used to manage the complexity of and uncertainty inherent in decision making. In the litigation risk assessment context, for example, decision trees are used to show key litigation events and possible final litigation outcomes based upon the probability of each of these key litigation events, and given combinations thereof, occurring. Several conventional software programs incorporate and use decision trees, Monte Carlo simulations, forecasting methods, linear and nonlinear programming optimization methods, and the like. Such software programs include, for example, TreeAge Pro (Litigation Risk Analysis, Inc.), DecisionPro (Vanguard Software Corporation), the Computer-Aided Case Evaluation system (Litigation Risk Analysis, Inc.), and Arborist (Texas Instruments, Inc.).
Examiner’s note: the Examiner has reconsidered the previously concluded insignificant extrasolution activity under the practical application step under the significantly more step as detailed above.
During prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude See, eg, Johnson & Johnston Assoc Inc v RE Serv Co, 285 F3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed Cir 2002) (en banc) As stated in Halliburton Energy Servs, Inc v M-I LLC, 514 F3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (CAFC 2008):
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation”
Conclusion
prior art made of record and not relied upon:
- Popowich US 2007/0192189 teaches systems and methods for advertising campaigns directed to multiple locations (see abstract and Figures 4-15)
- Boudah US 2009/0030788 teaches a method for providing online sale and management of advertising space on signs and billboards (see title, abstract, and Figure 4)
- Lin US 2010/0100414 teaches optimization of allocation of ad inventory through use of a solver (see abstract and paragraphs 0050-0056)
- Jilk (US 2010/0332311 teaches system and method of allocating ads based on use of a solver (see abstract and paragraph 0012)
- Strimaitis US 2016/0292744 teaches advertising on smart billboards and collecting user engagement (see abstract and Figures 1 and 3)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BREFFNI X BAGGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-7154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-10a, 12p-6p.
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.
BREFFNI BAGGOT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights