DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 08/08/2025.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are currently amended.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 advertisement transmission device comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire attribute information of a moving body detected from an image of a road targeted by a traffic light that displays a signal to the moving body traveling on the road, the image being captured by the traffic light;
acquire information indicating a lighting state of the traffic light;
determine an advertisement to be transmitted to a terminal device of the moving body based on the information indicating the lighting state of the traffic light and the attribute information; and
output the determined advertisement to the terminal device of the moving body on the road targeted by the traffic light.
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, 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 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).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) outlined above are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment). The courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A 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).
Claim(s) 2-12 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 2 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to,” “terminal device,” and “from the terminal device.” Claim 3 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to” and “the identified terminal device of.” Claim 4 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to,” “the terminal device of,” and “of the terminal device.” Claim 5 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to,” “the terminal device of,” and “includes screen display.” Claim 6 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to,” “including the screen display,” “the terminal device of the,” “not including the screen display,” and “the terminal device of.” Claim 7 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to.” Claim 8 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to.” Claim 9 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to,” “of the traffic light,” and “of the traffic light.” Claim 11 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to,” “by the traffic light,” and “the terminal device of the.” Claim 12 recites the additional element “operation object.” 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 10 does not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 10 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 13 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., certain method of organizing human activities, and mental processes). Claim 13 recites the additional elements of “causing a computer to,” “by a traffic light that displays a signal,” “by the traffic light,” “of the traffic light,” “a terminal device of the,” “terminal device of the,” and “by the traffic light.” However, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, 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., certain method of organizing human activities, and mental processes). Claim 14 recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory recording medium recording a program that causes a computer to execute processing of,” “by a traffic light that displays a signal,” “by the traffic light,” “of the traffic light,” “terminal device of the,” “of the traffic light,” “terminal device of the,” and “by the traffic light.” However, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2014/0266799 A1, hereinafter “Liu”), in view of Ramesh et al. (US 2015/0317687 A1, hereinafter “Ramesh”), in further view of Benhammou et al. (US 2018/0158329 A1, hereinafter “Benhammou”).
As per Claim 1, Liu teaches An advertisement transmission device … (Abstract “A system includes a vehicle processor configured to communicate with an intelligent street light to receive advertisements pertaining to local businesses.” ):
determine an advertisement to be transmitted to a terminal device of the moving body based on the information indicating the lighting state of the traffic light and … (¶ 40 “Advertising may be delivered by the chatterbot at proper timing, such as only during a red light or when a driver is moving at sufficiently slow speeds.” ¶ 49 “Once it is safe to deliver an advertisement 407 (e.g., the vehicle is moving at a low speed or stopped), the process will select an advertisement for delivery 409. In some illustrative embodiments, the advertisement will be selected based on user preferences, time of day, and other contextual information. Alternatively, a FIFO, LIFO or random selection can be made. In this example, there may only be a few ads present, so the only criteria is whether or not the vehicle has passed the location to which the advertisement applies 411. If the vehicle has not passed the location, the process presents the ad 413.” Also see at least ¶¶ 6, 16-20, 27, 32-45, 52, and claims 1-5.); and
output the determined advertisement to the terminal device of the moving body on the road targeted by the traffic light (¶ 6 “a system includes a vehicle processor configured to communicate with an intelligent street light to receive advertisements pertaining to local businesses. The processor is also configured to store a plurality of received advertisements. The processor is further configured to sort the advertisements based on one or more user factors. Also, the processor is configured to determine an appropriate time for advertisement delivery and deliver the advertisements at the appropriate time.” Also see at least ¶¶ 16-20, 27, 32-45, 49, 52, and claims 1-5.).
While Liu teaches all of the above limitations, including an advertisement transmission device, Liu does not appear to explicitly teach that the advertisement transmission device comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: acquire attribute information of a moving body detected from an image of a road; and [determine an advertisement to be transmitted based on]… the attribute information.
However, Ramesh teaches an advertisement transmission device comprising: one or more memories storing instructions (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 55-57. Also see Figures 1 and 3.); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 55-57. Also see Figures 1 and 3.):
acquire attribute information of a moving body detected from an image of a road (¶ 12 “FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a system 100 to provide analytics-based advertising, according to an embodiment. An outdoor advertising apparatus 102 is provided. In the example illustrated in FIG. 1, the outdoor advertising apparatus 102 is a billboard. It is understood that the outdoor advertising apparatus 102 may be various types of electronic displays, including but not limited to digital billboards, projection display systems, light-emitting diode displays, television displays, and the like. The outdoor advertising apparatus 102 is configured to display one or more advertisements to pedestrian or vehicle traffic. The vehicle traffic may include one or more vehicles 104. A monitoring station 106 may capture video or photographs of the vehicle traffic. The monitoring station 106 may be equipped with various sensors such as a camera, barometer, moisture sensor, clock, and the like to capture various environmental data. The monitoring station 106 may also be equipped with short and/or long-range telemetry equipment, such as a radio, to communicate over short or long-range telemetry. The monitoring station 106 may transmit or receive information from a network 108 over short-range or long-range telemetry. Monitoring stations 106 may be incorporated into a billboard or other outdoor advertising apparatus 102.” ¶ 34 “In an embodiment, the vehicle traffic data comprises video, and to obtain the vehicle identification, the processing module is to: capture an image of the vehicle from the video; identify a license plate of the vehicle from the image; and access a motor vehicle database to acquire at least one of a vehicle make or a vehicle model based on the license plate. In a further embodiment, to use the vehicle identification to classify the vehicle into the demographic profile, the processing module is to: access a correlation table, the correlation table correlating vehicle makes and models with household income brackets; and use the vehicle make or model to classify the vehicle into the demographic profile based at least in part on household income brackets.” ¶ 35 “In an embodiment, the vehicle traffic data comprises video, and to obtain the vehicle identification, the processing module is to: capture an image of the vehicle from the video; identify a marque on the vehicle; and use the marque to identify a vehicle make. In a further embodiment, to use the vehicle identification to classify the vehicle into the demographic profile, the processing module is to: access a correlation table, the correlation table correlating vehicle makes with household income brackets; and use the vehicle make to classify the vehicle into the demographic profile based at least in part on household income brackets.” ¶ 36 “In an embodiment, the vehicle traffic data comprises video, and wherein to obtain the vehicle identification, the processing module is to: capture an image of the vehicle from the video; identify a shape of the vehicle; and use the shape to identify at least one of a vehicle make or model. For example, the image may be processed to determine the model by analyzing a name on the tailgate of the vehicle, or the marque (e.g., the Ford® logo of the blue oval with the stylized “Ford” print or the Mercedes® three-pointed star). In a further embodiment, to use the vehicle identification to classify the vehicle into the demographic profile, the processing module is to: access a correlation table, the correlation table correlating vehicle makes and models with household income brackets; and use the vehicle make or model to classify the vehicle into the demographic profile based at least in part on household income brackets.” ¶ 37 “The advertising module 302 is configured to: access a group of advertisements; and select an advertisement from the group of advertisements based on the demographic model.” ¶ 39 “In an embodiment, to select the advertisement from the group of advertisements based on the demographic model, the advertising module is to: access metadata of an advertisement from the group of advertisements; and match the metadata with at least one aspect of the demographic model.” Also see at least claims 1-7.); and
[determine an advertisement to be transmitted based on]… the attribute information (¶¶12 and 34-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the advertisement transmission device comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: acquire attribute information of a moving body detected from an image of a road; and [determine an advertisement to be transmitted based on] the attribute information as taught by Ramesh, into Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantages of providing targeted advertisements to users more effectively (Ramesh, ¶ 17), increasing conversion rates, enhancing relevancy, lowering cost per acquisition, and ensuring a marketing budget is spent on consumers who are most likely to convert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the one or more memories and one or more processors of Ramesh into the advertisement transmission device of Liu, for the advantage of increasing the functionality of the advertisement transmission device (e.g., operating offline, tracking and reporting which advertisements were transmitted to the moving body, etc.). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While the combination of Liu/Ramesh teach all of the above limitations, they do not appear to explicitly teach [a road] targeted by a traffic light that displays a signal to the moving body traveling on the road, the image being captured by the traffic light; and acquire information indicating a lighting state of the traffic light.
However, Benhammou teaches [a road] targeted by a traffic light that displays a signal to the moving body traveling on the road, the image being captured by the traffic light (¶¶ 13, 23-32, and 39);
acquire information indicating a lighting state of the traffic light (¶¶ 13, 23-32, and 39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine [a road] targeted by a traffic light that displays a signal to the moving body traveling on the road, the image being captured by the traffic light; and acquire information indicating a lighting state of the traffic light as taught by Benhammou, into the combination of Liu/Ramesh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantages of implementing advertising strategies (Benhammou, ¶ 39), suppressing notifications while a vehicle is in motion (Benhammou, ¶¶ 37 and 90), and improving vehicle operational safety (Benhammou, ¶ 2). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 2, Liu teaches identify the terminal device of each moving body on the road targeted by the traffic light based on information obtained from the terminal device (¶¶ 30-31, 38, and 44-45. ¶¶ 16-20, 27, 32-45, 49, 52, and claims 1-5.).
While Liu teaches an advertisement transmission device, Liu does not appear to explicitly each wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to.
However, Ramesh teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 55-57. Also see Figures 1 and 3.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to as taught by Ramesh, into Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the one or more memories and one or more processors of Ramesh into the advertisement transmission device of Liu, for the advantage of increasing the functionality of the advertisement transmission device (e.g., operating offline, tracking and reporting which advertisements were transmitted to the moving body, etc.). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 3, Liu teaches … determine an advertisement to be transmitted to the identified terminal device of each moving body … (¶¶ 40 and 49. Also see at least ¶¶ 6, 16-20, 27, 32-45, 52, and claims 1-5.).
While Liu teaches all of the above limitations, Liu does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to and [determine an advertisement to be transmitted] based on the attribute information of each moving body estimated from the image.
However, Ramesh teaches an advertisement transmission device wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 55-57. Also see Figures 1 and 3.), and
[determine an advertisement to be transmitted] based on the attribute information of each moving body estimated from the image (¶¶12 and 34-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to, and [determine an advertisement to be transmitted] based on the attribute information of each moving body estimated from the image as taught by Ramesh, into Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantages of providing targeted advertisements to users more effectively (Ramesh, ¶ 17), increasing conversion rates, enhancing relevancy, lowering cost per acquisition, and ensuring a marketing budget is spent on consumers who are most likely to convert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the one or more memories and one or more processors of Ramesh into the advertisement transmission device of Liu, for the advantage of increasing the functionality of the advertisement transmission device (e.g., operating offline, tracking and reporting which advertisements were transmitted to the moving body, etc.). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 4, Liu teaches identify the terminal device of each moving body … based on positional information indicating a position of the terminal device of the moving body (¶ 42. Also see at least ¶¶ 6, 16-20, 27, 32-45, 49, 52, and claims 1-5.).
While Liu teaches all of the above limitations, Liu does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to, and
[identify each moving body] included in the image.
However, Ramesh teaches an advertisement transmission device wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 55-57. Also see Figures 1 and 3.), and
[identify each moving body] included in the image (¶¶12 and 34-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to, and [determine an advertisement to be transmitted] based on the attribute information of each moving body estimated from the image as taught by Ramesh, into Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantages of providing targeted advertisements to users more effectively (Ramesh, ¶ 17), increasing conversion rates, enhancing relevancy, lowering cost per acquisition, and ensuring a marketing budget is spent on consumers who are most likely to convert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the one or more memories and one or more processors of Ramesh into the advertisement transmission device of Liu, for the advantage of increasing the functionality of the advertisement transmission device (e.g., operating offline, tracking and reporting which advertisements were transmitted to the moving body, etc.). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 7, Liu teaches determine whether or not to transmit the advertisement in accordance with the lighting state (¶¶ 40 and 49. Also see at least ¶¶ 6, 16-20, 27, 32-45, 52, and claims 1-5.).
While Liu teaches an advertisement transmission device, Liu does not appear to explicitly each wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to.
However, Ramesh teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 55-57. Also see Figures 1 and 3.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to as taught by Ramesh, into Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the one or more memories and one or more processors of Ramesh into the advertisement transmission device of Liu, for the advantage of increasing the functionality of the advertisement transmission device (e.g., operating offline, tracking and reporting which advertisements were transmitted to the moving body, etc.). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 8, Liu teaches determine not to transmit the advertisement in a case where the lighting state is not a state indicating stop of the moving body (¶¶ 40 and 49. Also see at least ¶¶ 6, 16-20, 27, 32-45, 52, and claims 1-5.).
While Liu teaches an advertisement transmission device, Liu does not appear to explicitly each wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to.
However, Ramesh teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 55-57. Also see Figures 1 and 3.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to as taught by Ramesh, into Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the one or more memories and one or more processors of Ramesh into the advertisement transmission device of Liu, for the advantage of increasing the functionality of the advertisement transmission device (e.g., operating offline, tracking and reporting which advertisements were transmitted to the moving body, etc.). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 9, Liu teaches detect the lighting state of the traffic light …(¶¶ 40 and 49. Also see at least ¶¶ 6, 16-20, 27, 32-45, 52, and claims 1-5.).
While Liu teaches an advertisement transmission device, Liu does not appear to explicitly each wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to.
However, Ramesh teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 55-57. Also see Figures 1 and 3.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to as taught by Ramesh, into Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the one or more memories and one or more processors of Ramesh into the advertisement transmission device of Liu, for the advantage of increasing the functionality of the advertisement transmission device (e.g., operating offline, tracking and reporting which advertisements were transmitted to the moving body, etc.). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While the combination of Liu/Ramesh detect the lighting state of the traffic light, they do not appear to explicitly do so based on control information for controlling the lighting state of the traffic light.
However, Benhammou teaches based on control information for controlling the lighting state of the traffic light (¶¶ 13, 23-32, and 39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine detecting of the lighting state based on control information for controlling the lighting state of the traffic light as taught by Benhammou, into the combination of Liu/Ramesh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantages of implementing advertising strategies (Benhammou, ¶ 39), suppressing notifications while a vehicle is in motion (Benhammou, ¶¶ 37 and 90), and improving vehicle operational safety (Benhammou, ¶ 2). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 11, Liu teaches determine an advertisement including information regarding a facility located in a traveling direction of the moving body on the road
targeted by the traffic light as the advertisement to be transmitted to the terminal device of the moving body (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitation is not given patentable weight because it is nonfunctional descriptive material that merely describes the content of the advertisement. However, see ¶¶ 7-8, 36, 48, and Claim 10. Also see at least ¶¶ 6, 16-20, 27, 32-45, 49, 52, and claims 1-5.).
While Liu teaches an advertisement transmission device, Liu does not appear to explicitly each wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to.
However, Ramesh teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 55-57. Also see Figures 1 and 3.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to as taught by Ramesh, into Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the one or more memories and one or more processors of Ramesh into the advertisement transmission device of Liu, for the advantage of increasing the functionality of the advertisement transmission device (e.g., operating offline, tracking and reporting which advertisements were transmitted to the moving body, etc.). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claims 13-14, they recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claims 13-14 are rejected using the same rationale as claim 1. Claim 13 recites the additional limitation: An advertisement transmission method comprising causing a computer to. Claim 14 recites the additional limitation: A non-transitory recording medium recording a program that causes a computer to execute processing steps of.
While Liu teaches an advertisement transmission device, Liu does not appear to explicitly teach An advertisement transmission method comprising causing a computer to and A non-transitory recording medium recording a program that causes a computer to execute processing steps of.
However, Ramesh teaches An advertisement transmission method comprising causing a computer to (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 53-58. Also see Figures 1 and 3.) and
A non-transitory recording medium recording a program that causes a computer to execute processing steps of (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 55-58. Also see Figures 1 and 3.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine An advertisement transmission method comprising causing a computer to and A non-transitory recording medium recording a program that causes a computer to execute processing steps of, into Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the one or more memories and one or more processors of Ramesh into the advertisement transmission device of Liu, for the advantages of increasing the functionality of the advertisement transmission device (e.g., operating offline, tracking and reporting which advertisements were transmitted to the moving body, etc.), and to provide broader patent coverage and in different statutory categories. The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., in view of Ramesh, in view of Benhammou, in further view of Kitagishi (US 2017/0318433 A1, hereinafter “Kitagishi”).
As per Claim 5, Liu teaches determine whether or not the advertisement to be transmitted to the terminal device of the moving body … in accordance with the lighting state (¶¶ 40 and 49. Also see at least ¶¶ 6, 16-20, 27, 32-45, 52, and claims 1-5.).
While Liu teaches an advertisement transmission device, Liu does not appear to explicitly each wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to.
However, Ramesh teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 55-57. Also see Figures 1 and 3.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to as taught by Ramesh, into Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the one or more memories and one or more processors of Ramesh into the advertisement transmission device of Liu, for the advantage of increasing the functionality of the advertisement transmission device (e.g., operating offline, tracking and reporting which advertisements were transmitted to the moving body, etc.). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While the combination of Liu/Ramesh/Benhammou determine whether or not to transmit the advertisement to the terminal device of the moving body in accordance with the lighting state, they do not appear to explicitly teach that the advertisement includes screen display.
However, Kitagishi teaches an advertisement that includes screen display (¶¶ 53-54, 56-57, 102, and 108. Also see Figures 5 and 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine an advertisement that includes screen display as taught by Kitagishi, into the combination of Liu/Ramesh/Benhammou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of providing immediate information delivery instead of having a user actively listen to the entirety of an audio advertisement. The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 6, Liu teaches determine the advertisement … as the advertisement to be transmitted to the terminal device of the moving body in a case where the lighting state is a state indicating stop of the moving body (¶¶ 40 and 49. Also see at least ¶¶ 6, 16-20, 27, 32-45, 52, and claims 1-5.),
[an advertisement] to be transmitted to the terminal device of the moving body (¶¶ 40 and 49. Also see at least ¶¶ 6, 16-20, 27, 32-45, 52, and claims 1-5.).
where the lighting state is not the state indicating the stop of the moving body (¶¶ 40 and 49. Also see at least ¶¶ 6, 16-20, 27, 32-45, 52, and claims 1-5.).
While Liu teaches an advertisement transmission device, Liu does not appear to explicitly each wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to.
However, Ramesh teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to (Figure 5 and ¶¶ 55-57. Also see Figures 1 and 3.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to as taught by Ramesh, into Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the one or more memories and one or more processors of Ramesh into the advertisement transmission device of Liu, for the advantage of increasing the functionality of the advertisement transmission device (e.g., operating offline, tracking and reporting which advertisements were transmitted to the moving body, etc.). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While the combination of Liu/Ramesh/Benhammou determine whether or not to transmit the advertisement to the terminal device of the moving body in accordance with the lighting state, they do not appear to explicitly teach [an advertisement] including the screen display.
However, Kitagishi teaches [an advertisement] including the screen display (¶¶ 53-54, 56-57, 102, and 108. Also see Figures 5 and 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine an advertisement that includes screen display as taught by Kitagishi, into the combination of Liu/Ramesh/Benhammou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of providing immediate information delivery instead of having a user actively listen to the entirety of an audio advertisement. The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
While Liu determines the advertisement as the advertisement to be transmitted to the terminal device of the moving body in a case where the lighting state is a state indicating stop of the moving body, the combination of Liu/Ramesh/Benhammou do not appear to explicitly teach
and determines the advertisement not including the screen display as the advertisement … in a case [where the moving body has not stopped].
However, Kitagishi teaches and determines the advertisement not including the screen display as the advertisement … in a case [where the moving body has not stopped] (¶¶ 53-54, 56-57, 102, and 108. Also see Figures 5 and 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and determines the advertisement not including the screen display as the advertisement in a case [where the moving body has not stopped] as taught by Kitagishi, into the combination of Liu/Ramesh/Benhammou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of providing content in a manner that suits that behavior of an occupant and/or a condition related to the vehicle (Kitagishi, ¶¶ 57, 114, 116, and 136). The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., in view of Ramesh, in view of Benhammou, in further view of Moshrefi et al. (US 2011/0028137 A1, hereinafter “Moshrefi”).
As per Claim 10, while Liu transmits advertisements based on a travel route, and the signals from the lights can indicate business locations and proximity to a driver’s location (see ¶ 36), the combination of Liu/Ramesh/Benhammou do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the advertisement to be output includes guidance information to a facility to be advertised.
However, Moshrefi teaches wherein the advertisement to be output includes guidance information to a facility to be advertised (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitation is not given patentable weight because it is nonfunctional descriptive material that merely describes the content of the advertisement. However, see at least Figure 6C and ¶¶ 46-47.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine wherein the advertisement to be output includes guidance information to a facility to be advertised as taught by Moshrefi, into the combination of Liu/Ramesh/Benhammou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of encouraging users to patronize advertisers in exchange for no-charge use of the navigation application when visiting advertisers (Moshrefi, ¶ 46), and to quickly navigate to an advertiser’s location without having to manually enter the advertiser’s address. The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 12, while Liu transmits advertisements based on a travel route, and the signals from the lights can indicate business locations and proximity to a driver’s location (see ¶ 36), the combination of Liu/Ramesh/Benhammou do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the advertisement to be output includes an operation object for starting guidance to a facility to be advertised.
However, Moshrefi teaches wherein the advertisement to be output includes an operation object for starting guidance to a facility to be advertised (Figure 6C and ¶¶ 46-47.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine wherein the advertisement to be output includes an operation object for starting guidance to a facility to be advertised as taught by Moshrefi, into the combination of Liu/Ramesh/Benhammou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of encouraging users to patronize advertisers in exchange for no-charge use of the navigation application when visiting advertisers (Moshrefi, ¶ 46), and to quickly navigate to an advertiser’s location without having to manually enter the advertiser’s address. The claimed invention is also merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR Rationale A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Casey eta al. (US 2011/0015997 A1) is directed to systems and methods for advertising at a traffic light (TL). One embodiment includes an advertisement system for selective advertising in conjunction with a TL having at least one phase chosen from a green light phase and a red light phase. The system includes a processor and a database having advertising content. The system includes a TL interface in communication with the processor. The system also includes a display in communication with the processor for displaying advertising content.
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