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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 7/14/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: capture configured to, acquisitor configured to, display controller configured to, determiner configured to, detector configured to, audio controller configured to, in claims 1-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof – i.e. the computing elements noted above represent generic computing elements.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a device, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising or sales activities or behaviors, business relations/activities , and fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: continuously capture an image of the face of a user looking at a display / acquire a first advertisement with which one or more display termination conditions for terminating display of the an advertisement are associated / display the first advertisement acquired / determine whether or not at least one of the one or more display termination conditions has been satisfied on the basis of a plurality of images continuously captured while the first advertisement is displayed / automatically perform termination processing related to termination of displaying the first advertisement , without further input from the user, when the determiner determines that at least one of the one or more display termination conditions has been satisfied. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept- i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: acquire a first advertisement with which one or more display termination conditions for terminating display of an advertisement are associated. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of an image capture / acquisitor / a display / display controller / determiner / display controller, which represent generic computing elements. The additional element of determining data in real time does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional element of determining data in real time does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 10, 11 are directed to a method and a medium for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; they recite the same abstract idea(s) as claim 1. Claims 10, 11 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 10, 11 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Claim 12 is directed towards a device, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 12 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising or sales activities or behaviors, business relations/activities , and fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: capture an image of a face of a user looking at a display screen of a display device / acquiring a first advertisement associated with one or more display termination conditions for terminating display of the first advertisement / display the first advertisement / perform an image analysis process of the image captured , further comprises: determining whether or not a line of sight of the user is directed to the display screen / identifying that the user is in a viewing state where the user is viewing the display screen of the display device in case that it was determined that the line of sight of the user is directed to the display screen / identifying that the user is in a non-viewing state where the user is not viewing the display screen in case that it was not determined that the line of sight of the user is directed to the display screen / performing a viewing-promotion image display process, in case that the user was identified as being in the non-viewing state, comprises: displaying a viewing-promotion image on the display screen, wherein the viewing promotion image is superimposed on the first advertisement, the viewing-promotion image includes a text message that prompts the user to view the first advertisement displayed, and the text message is related to a reward to be granted to the user by having viewed the first advertisement / performing an operation-image display process that comprises: displaying, while the first advertisement and the viewing-promotion image are being displayed, an operation-image that enables an operation to be received for terminating the display of the first advertisement / receiving the operation to the operation-image displayed to terminate the display of the first advertisement / terminate the display of the first advertisement in case that the operation to the operation-image to terminate the display of the first advertisement has been received. Claim 12 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept- i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: acquiring a first advertisement associated with one or more display termination conditions for terminating display of the first advertisement/ determining whether or not a line of sight of the user is directed to the display screen/ identifying that the user is in a viewing state where the user is viewing the display screen of the display device in case that it was determined that the line of sight of the user is directed to the display screen / identifying that the user is in a non-viewing state where the user is not viewing the display screen in case that it was not determined that the line of sight of the user is directed to the display screen. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 12 includes the additional elements of a camera / display device including a screen/ memory that stores a set of processor-executable instructions/hardware processor, which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 12 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 2-9, 13-20 further recite and narrow the abstract idea of Claims 1/12. The claims further recite the abstract concept of a mathematical concept , which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: calculating the total viewing time by summing time lengths of the one or more viewing periods, wherein the display time of the first advertisement includes one or more weighted periods each associated with a respective weight, and the calculating further comprises applying the respective weight of teach weighted period to the time length of a viewing period that overlaps with that weighted period. The claims further recite the additional elements of a detector, audio output device, audio controller, which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Outputting audio content does no more than apply or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Rosenberg (20060256133) in further view of Gottlieb (10885547).
As per Claims 1, 10, 11, Rosenberg teaches a device, method, and medium comprising:
an image capture configured to continuously capture a plurality of images of the face of a user looking at a display; (the capture represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 34; images include the user’s face – at least para 71)
an acquisitor configured to acquire a first advertisement with which one or more display termination conditions for terminating display of an advertisement are associated; (the acquisitor represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: fig7 and associated/related text- computing processor including software elements; gathering the ad – at least para 9, associated with a display termination condition- at least para 15)
a display controller configured to cause the display to display the first advertisement acquired by the acquisitor; (the controller represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 2, para 70 – display device [display controller])
and a determiner configured to determine whether or not at least one of the one or more display termination conditions has been satisfied…while the first advertisement is displayed in the display (the determiner represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 15, para 53 – computing processor including software elements)
Gottlieb further teaches:
Determine, in real time, whether or not at least one of the …conditions has been satisfied on the basis of a plurality of images continuously captured…while the first advertisement is displayed in the display (at least claim 3 – real time processing; remaining limitations- at least: claim 14, col4, lines 15-25)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rosenberg’s existing features, with Gottlieb’s feature of determine, in real time, whether or not at least one of the …conditions has been satisfied on the basis of a plurality of images continuously captured…while the first advertisement is displayed in the display, to monitor ad effectiveness – Gottlieb, col1, lines 5-10. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
Rosenberg in view of Gottlieb further teach:
wherein the display controller is configured to automatically perform termination processing related to termination of displaying the first advertisement in the display , without further input from the user, when the determiner determines that at least one of the one or more display termination conditions has been satisfied. (Rosenberg, at least: claim 1- “determining whether a user's gaze falls within a predetermined spatial boundary of an advertisement display area; playing at least a portion of a video-based advertisement within at least a portion of the predetermined spatial boundary in response to an affirmative determining; stopping the play of the at least a portion of the video-based advertisement in response to determining that the user's gaze falls outside of the predetermined spatial boundary for an amount of time exceeding a predetermined time threshold; “)
As per Claim 2, Rosenberg in view of Gottlieb teach :
the one or more display termination conditions include at least one of: that a total viewing time of the first advertisement by the user is equal to or longer than a first time set in advance (Rosenberg, at least para 15, 17, 34)
As per Claim 4, Rosenberg in view of Gottlieb teach :
identify a viewing period during which the user has viewed the first advertisement within the display time of the first advertisement on the basis of the plurality of images when the first advertisement is being displayed in the display, and wherein the determiner is configured to determine whether or not at least one of the one or more display termination conditions has been satisfied on the basis of the identified viewing period. (at least: para 15, 17; At least: para 34 – camera that acquires images of a user looking at a display; images include the user’s face – at least para 71, 34)
As per Claim 5, Rosenberg in view of Gottlieb teach :
determine whether or not a line of sight direction in which a line of sight of the user is directed has been directed to a display screen of the display on the basis of the plurality of images when the first advertisement is displayed in the display, and wherein the determiner is configured to identify a period during which the line of sight direction is directed to the display screen within the display time of the first advertisement as a period during which the user has viewed the first advertisement. (at least: para 15, 17, abstract, 34)
As per Claim 6, Rosenberg in view of Gottlieb teach:
determine whether or not an image of the face of the user has been captured in any of the plurality of images on the basis of the plurality of images when the first advertisement is displayed in the display, and wherein the determiner is configured to determine whether or not the line of sight direction is directed to the display screen if it is determined that an image of the face of the user has been captured in the captured image. (determining the user’s face has been captured in the image- at least: para 71; the remaining claimed limitations – at least para 15, 17, 34)
As per Claim 8, Rosenberg in view of Gottlieb teach:
cause the display to repeatedly display the first advertisement or to cause the display to display an image including information prompting the user to view the first advertisement until the determiner determines that at least one of the one or more display termination conditions has been satisfied when the first advertisement is displayed by the display and when the determiner determines that at least one of the one or more display termination conditions has not been satisfied. (Rosenberg, at least: para 10 – repeating the ad, the remaining claimed limitations: at least para 15, 17)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Rosenberg (20060256133) in further view of Gottlieb (10885547), in even further view of Beard (WO 0177978 A1).
As per Claim 3, Rosenberg teaches termination processing of a first advertisement, as noted above, and Beard further teaches:
The termination processing is any of: processing of terminating display of the first advertisement in the display, processing of causing the display to display an image receiving an operation of terminating display of the first advertisement in the display. (at least: page 6/10: “The prompt display routine then determines whether a desired user's response was provided whilst the prompt was presented at 48. If the user provided a desired response, program control returns to the control program at 50, otherwise the presentation of the advertisement is terminated at step 52 and the user is informed that they did not comply with the requirements to be credited with having paid attention to the advertisement”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rosenberg’s existing features, combined with Gottlieb’s existing feature,
with Beard’s feature of processing of terminating display of the first advertisement in the display, processing of causing the display to display an image receiving an operation of terminating display of the first advertisement in the display, to determine whether the user is paying attention to displayed content – Beard, page 3/10- Field of the Invention. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Rosenberg (20060256133) in further view of Gottlieb (10885547), in even further view of Bruhn (9432612).
As per Claim 7, Rosenberg teaches determining the user’s line of sight, and the user viewing the first ad, as noted above; Bruhn further teaches:
a detector configured to detect a brightness in a surrounding area of the information processing device (the detector represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: fig4– icon 140; the content’s brightness is construed as the brightness in a surrounding area of the device; fig2 and associated /related text: ambient light sensor is construed as the detector)
wherein the determiner is configured to determine whether or not the line of sight direction is directed to the display screen when the first advertisement is displayed in the display and when the brightness detected by the detector is equal to or higher than a threshold set in advance. (at least: col4:
“FIG. 3 shows local viewing environment 420 with two viewers 126, 130, watching display 114. The darkness level at which each viewer's eyes go into night vision varies by individual. In one embodiment, viewers go through a calibration process to determine each viewer's eyes' night vision threshold level to determine the desired ambient light characteristics for optimal viewing for the most accurate color perception. This information is used to determine adjustments needed to overall ambient lighting by adjustment system 110, for example so that ambient light levels do not fall below any viewer's threshold level. Some nonexclusive embodiments of this calibration process include monitoring the pupil of the viewer's eyes to using dilation measurements to determine when the eye is about to go into night vision. Another embodiment includes determining night vision threshold by using a tablet application coupled with a questionnaire that displays images of varying color and contrast and asks the viewer questions on how the image appears.”, col5: “In addition to determining the brightness and saturation level within a local viewing environment, ambient light sensors 112, in some non-limiting embodiments, may determine where individual viewers 126, 130 are sitting in local viewing environment 420, as well as the location and direction of display device 114 relative to the viewers. The system may also be able to determine the direction and intensity of one or more light sources 122, 124 within the viewing area 420, and whether each light source, if made brighter, would be directly in a viewer's line-of-sight as the viewer watches display device 114. In some embodiments, ambient light sensor 112 is also able to identify light sources that, when turned up, would not shine directly in the viewer's eyes and therefore be a more appropriate light source to use to adjust ambient lighting. For example, if step 140b, using ambient light sensor 112, determines that there are four lamps in the room and that two lamps are behind viewers, those lamps should be brightened first to adjust ambient lighting. In another non-limiting embodiment, the orientation of display device 114 is known relative to light sources, and ambient light sources can be adjusted so that reflection or glare of the light source off of the display device is minimized. In this way, the system may determine the most appropriate lights to brighten or dim to adjust ambient lighting for viewers' 126, 130 optimal viewing experience of content on display device 114.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rosenberg’s existing features, combined with Gottlieb’s existing feature, with Bruhn’s feature of a detector configured to detect a brightness in a surrounding area of the information processing device ; wherein the determiner is configured to determine whether or not the line of sight direction is directed to the display screen when the first advertisement is displayed in the display and when the brightness detected by the detector is equal to or higher than a threshold set in advance, to evaluate the ambient light in a local viewing environment where video content is being displayed, and to make adjustments to the ambient light, video display device, and/or video content to cause the perception of the color and brightness of the video content to the viewer to be true to what the video content producer intended the viewer to perceive – Bruhn, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Rosenberg (20060256133) in further view of Gottlieb (10885547), in even further view of Lee (20160098246).
As per Claim 9, Rosenberg teaches selecting/displaying a first advertisement, and Lee further teaches:
an audio output device configured to output audio; and an audio controller configured to cause the audio output device to output audio, wherein the audio controller is configured to change a volume of audio output from the audio output device to a first volume set in advance at a timing before the first advertisement is displayed in the display when the display controller causes the display to display the first advertisement. (the device/controller represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: abstract, para 11)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Rosenberg’s existing features, combined with Gottlieb’s existing feature, with Lee’s feature of an audio output device configured to output audio; and an audio controller configured to cause the audio output device to output audio, wherein the audio controller is configured to change a volume of audio output from the audio output device to a first volume set in advance at a timing before the first advertisement is displayed in the display when the display controller causes the display to display the first advertisement, to output sound-related content – Lee, abstract and para 8. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 12-20. Rosenberg (20060256133) teaches a gaze-responsive video ad display, including: determining whether a user's gaze falls within a predetermined spatial boundary of an advertisement display area; playing at least a portion of a video-based advertisement within at least a portion of the predetermined spatial boundary in response to an affirmative determining; stopping the play of the at least a portion of the video-based advertisement in response to determining that the user's gaze falls outside of the predetermined spatial boundary for an amount of time exceeding a predetermined time threshold; and resuming play of the at least a portion of the video-based advertisement in response to determining that the user's gaze falls within the predetermined spatial boundary of the advertisement display area. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claim 12.
When taken as a whole, pending claims 12-20 are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Even assuming arguendo that certain limitations recite an abstract concept at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are integrated into a practical application. Applying the Alice/Mayo framework (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)), the claimed system uses a physical camera to continuously capture face images, performs real-time gaze-direction analysis on those images, and automatically controls the display and termination of an advertisement based on that analysis - producing a specific technical outcome: verified advertisement viewing. This closed-loop, sensor-driven process cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper and constitutes a practical application of any alleged abstract idea. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 2. The Specification Identifies a Technical Problem. The Specification frames the invention around a specific technical problem, not merely a business objective. The known advertisement distribution system described in the Background Art captures an image of a user's face, detects a line-of-sight direction from that image, and uses the detected direction only to decide which of two candidate devices should receive a distributed advertisement (Patent Document 1; Spec. [0003]). That conventional system includes no mechanism, once an advertisement begins displaying on a given device, for confirming through sensor data whether the user actually continues to view it - a device may complete a display cycle with no objective, machine-verified indication that the intended viewing ever occurred (Spec. [0005]). The Specification identifies this as the problem the invention addresses, stating that the invention aims to provide a device, method, and program capable of more reliably causing a user to view an advertisement displayed in a display (Spec. [0006]).
3. Claims 1, 10, and 11 Recite a Specific Technical Solution to That Problem.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite the specific technical solution the Specification provides for that problem: a closed control loop in which the image capture continuously acquires images of the user's face while the display presents the first advertisement, the determiner evaluates the captured image against one or more display termination conditions associated with that specific advertisement, and the display controller's termination processing is directly and automatically gated on the outcome of that sensor-based determination (Spec. [0007]-[0009]). Unlike Patent Document l's one-time routing decision, this is a continuous, sensor-driven feedback mechanism operating for the duration of the display - a specific technical means of confirming viewing that the conventional system lacked. Applying the Alice/Mayo framework (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)), this closed-loop, sensor-driven process cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper and constitutes a technical solution to a technical problem, integrated into a practical application. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to a specific technical solution to a technical problem, rather than merely applying a business practice using generic technology, may be patent- eligible); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). B. New Claims 12-20 Clearly Satisfy § 101 New claims 12-20 are specifically structured to demonstrate patent eligibility across multiple independent grounds. Each claim adds concrete machine-implemented operations grounded in the hardware architecture of the device.
Claims 12-13: Core Hardware-Anchored Practical Application
Claim 12 recites a specific hardware system - camera, memory, hardware processor device - performing an ordered series of operations: image capture, line-of-sight analysis, viewing/non-viewing state identification, responsive display of a reward-linked viewing- promotion image superimposed on the advertisement, and user-controlled termination via an operation-image. This is not a mental process. A human cannot simultaneously capture video images of a face, perform line-of-sight analysis, and dynamically control advertisement display and UI elements. The claim is directed to a specific machine performing a specific technical function. Claim 13 adds the condition-satisfaction determination and consequent advertisement termination that completes the reward-verification loop.
Claims 12 and 13 recite how the display control unit acts to perform both the target
advertisement display process and the interrupt advertisement display process in the viewpoint of "practical application".
Claim 14: Pause/Restart Advertisement Playback State Machine
Claim 14 adds the operations of pausing the advertisement upon detecting a non-viewing state, and restarting upon receipt of a user continuation operation. This is a concrete media- playback state machine - a specific technical behavior of the hardware - that responds to real- time sensor input (camera-derived gaze data). Managing media playback states based on machine-detected user behavior is not an abstract idea; it is a concrete machine operation. This is analogous to the claim elements recognized in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) as effecting a result that overrides routine operation of the system in a specific, technically defined way.
Technical Problem: Absent claim 14's mechanism, a device that has determined the user is not viewing has no way to avoid continuing to consume display and audio output resources on content the user is not watching, nor any way to resume an interrupted advertisement without restarting it from the beginning. The Specification discloses that, upon a non-viewing determination, the display and audio outputs are affirmatively paused, and are resumed only if the user elects, via the operation-image, to continue viewing (Spec. [0070], [0074]).
Technical Solution: Claim 14 recites this specific playback-management mechanism - pausing display of the advertisement on a non-viewing determination and restarting the previously-paused display upon receipt of a user continuation operation - as a concrete state transition of the hardware's display and audio output, governed entirely by camera-derived sensor input. This is a specific technical means of coordinating sensor input with device output state, not an abstract idea, and is analogous to the technologically-grounded solution recognized in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claims 15-16: Sequential Image-Analysis Pipeline with Fallback Logic
Claim 15 introduces a two-stage image analysis pipeline: face detection as a prerequisite gate before performing computationally more intensive line-of-sight detection. Claim 16 adds a hardware-implemented fallback - when line-of-sight cannot be detected (e.g., due to sunglasses), the system analyzes face orientation as an alternative proxy for viewing state. These claims recite a specific, ordered computational method applied to camera sensor data to achieve a technically defined result (viewing state classification). This is not an observation performable mentally; it requires machine vision processing of physical image data. The sequential pipeline with fallback logic is a concrete improvement to the image analysis subsystem of the device.
Technical Problem: Line-of-sight detection from a captured image is not always
possible using the device's camera. The Specification recognizes that a user's line of sight can fail to be detected in a captured image because of sunglasses or the like - a limitation of image- based gaze detection that would otherwise cause a viewing determination to fail even though the user may in fact be looking at the display (Spec. [0075]).
Technical Solution: Claim 15 recites a two-stage image-analysis pipeline in which the more computationally demanding line-of-sight determination is performed only after face detection succeeds, and claim 16 recites a fallback: when the line of sight cannot be detected, the device instead determines whether the user's face is directed to the display screen and bases the viewing/non-viewing determination on that face-orientation analysis. This is the specific technical workaround the Specification provides for a concrete camera-sensing limitation (Spec. [0075]) - a machine-vision engineering solution to a sensing failure mode, not a mental process, that improves the reliability of the device's own image-analysis subsystem. See Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Claim 17: Weighted-Period Viewing-Time Computation
Claim 17 recites a specific algorithmic calculation: summing viewing-period durations derived from image analysis, with weights applied to identified weighted periods, to compute a total viewing time for comparison against an advertiser-defined threshold. This is a concrete arithmetic operation performed by the hardware processor on data derived from camera-based gaze detection. A mathematical calculation integrated into a larger practical process - here, verified advertisement engagement scoring - is not an abstract idea when it operates on physical sensor data and produces a technically meaningful result used to control device behavior. See Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (mathematical relationships applied to physical sensor measurements held patent-eligible).
Technical Problem: A determiner that simply sums all viewing periods within an advertisement's display time cannot distinguish portions of an advertisement an advertiser considers more important from portions considered less important, so a user could satisfy a viewing-time condition without ever having viewed the specific content the advertiser most needs verified. The Specification identifies this shortcoming and addresses it by associating different weights with different periods of the display time (Spec. [0062]).
Technical Solution: Claim 17 recites a specific computation performed by the hardware processor on image-analysis-derived viewing periods: identifying viewing periods from the image analysis process, calculating total viewing time by applying a respective weight to the portion of each viewing period that overlaps a weighted period of the display time, and comparing the result to a threshold. This is a concrete algorithm operating on physical sensor- derived data to produce a technically meaningful result that controls device behavior, not disembodied mathematics. See Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (mathematical relationships applied to physical sensor measurements held patent-eligible).
Claim 18: Camera-Based Ambient Brightness Detection Gating Image Analysis
Claim 18 adds an operation where the image analysis pipeline uses the camera image
itself to detect ambient brightness and gates the line-of-sight analysis accordingly - bypassing gaze detection in low-light conditions where reliable detection is not possible, and defaulting to a viewing-state assumption. This is a specific hardware-implemented adaptive behavior: the device uses physical sensor data to determine the reliability of further sensor-based analysis before committing processing resources. This is a concrete technical improvement to the image analysis process, not an abstract idea.
Technical Problem: In low-light conditions, the device's image capture may be unable to reliably yield an image from which a face can be detected at all, which absent a corrective mechanism would cause the device to erroneously identify the user as non-viewing due to a limitation of the sensor rather than the user's actual behavior. The Specification explains that even when the surrounding area is dark, the invention still causes the user to be treated as viewing the advertisement (Spec. [0083], [0085]).
Technical Solution: Claim 18 recites detecting brightness from the captured image,
performing the line-of-sight determination only when detected brightness meets a first threshold, and identifying the viewing state without performing that determination when brightness falls below the threshold. This is a specific hardware-conditioned gating mechanism that prevents the image-analysis subsystem from producing an unreliable result under a known sensing limitation
- a concrete improvement to the operation of the device's own image-analysis pipeline, not an abstract idea. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 19: Operation-Image State Transition Machine
REMARKS
Claims 1-20 are all of the claims presently pending in the application, with claims withdrawn from consideration. Applicant has amended various claims to more particularly define the claimed invention and/or for editorial purposes. Applicant has added claims 12-20 to provide more varied protection for the claimed invention.
Further, Applicant specifically states that no amendment to any claim herein should be construed as a disclaimer of any interest in or right to an equivalent of any element or feature of the amended claim.
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Office Action at 5.
on those images, and automatically controls the display and termination of an advertisement based on that analysis - producing a specific technical outcome: verified advertisement viewing. This closed-loop, sensor-driven process cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper and constitutes a practical application of any alleged abstract idea. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
2. The Specification Identifies a Technical Problem. The Specification frames the invention around a specific technical problem, not merely a business objective. The known advertisement distribution system described in the Background Art captures an image of a user's face, detects a line-of-sight direction from that image, and uses the detected direction only to decide which of two candidate devices should receive a distributed advertisement (Patent Document 1; Spec. [0003]). That conventional system includes no mechanism, once an advertisement begins displaying on a given device, for confirming through sensor data whether the user actually continues to view it - a device may complete a display cycle with no objective, machine-verified indication that the intended viewing ever occurred (Spec. [0005]). The Specification identifies this as the problem the invention addresses, stating that the invention aims to provide a device, method, and program capable of more reliably causing a user to view an advertisement displayed in a display (Spec. [0006]).
3. Claims 1, 10, and 11 Recite a Specific Technical Solution to That Problem.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite the specific technical solution the Specification provides for that problem: a closed control loop in which the image capture continuously acquires images of the user's face while the display presents the first advertisement, the determiner evaluates the captured image against one or more display termination conditions associated with that specific advertisement, and the display controller's termination processing is directly and automatically gated on the outcome of that sensor-based determination (Spec. [0007]-[0009]). Unlike Patent Document l's one-time routing decision, this is a continuous, sensor-driven feedback mechanism operating for the duration of the display - a specific technical means of confirming viewing that the conventional system lacked. Applying the Alice/Mayo framework (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)), this closed-loop, sensor-driven process cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper and constitutes a technical solution to a technical problem, integrated into a practical application. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to a specific technical solution to a technical problem, rather than merely applying a business practice using generic technology, may be patent- eligible); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). B. New Claims 12-20 Clearly Satisfy § 101
New claims 12-20 are specifically structured to demonstrate patent eligibility across multiple independent grounds. Each claim adds concrete machine-implemented operations grounded in the hardware architecture of the device.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Determining the viewing state of a user relative to advertising content and displaying/terminating the displaying of advertising content to a user based on the determined state represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field. Thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field.
The subject claim considered by the DDR Court pertained to a visitor of a host's website clicking on an advertisement for a third-party product displayed on the host's website, whereby the visitor is no longer being transported to the third party's website. In DDR, instead of losing visitors to the third-party's website, the host website can send its visitors to a web page on an outsource provider's server that incorporates "look and feel" elements from the host website, and provides visitors with the opportunity to purchase products from the third-party merchant without actually entering that merchant's website. Id. at 1257-58. Here, in contrast to the claims of DDR Holdings, the present claims are not necessarily rooted in computer technology to solve Internet-centric problems. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. Unlike DDR Holdings, Appellant's device is not claimed as solving or otherwise addressing an Internet-centric problem, but rather is directed to an abstract idea as discussed supra.
The instant claimed invention and Enfish have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Enfish, the Courts found that no abstract idea was present, that the claims were directed to a self-referential table for a computer database, and that the claims were directed to an improvement of an existing technology. The Courts further emphasized that the specification taught specific technical benefits over conventional databases. Contrary to Enfish, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The instant claimed invention and McRO have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in McRO the Courts concluded that the claimed invention was not directed to an abstract idea under prong one of Alice. The Court concluded the subject claims did not recite an abstract idea because the computer animation improved the prior art through the use of rules, rather than artists, to set morph weights and transitions between phonemes. Id. at 1308. Thus, the claimed invention in McRO allowed for computer performance of animation steps that previously had to be performed by human animators. Id. at 1313. Notably, the Court in McRO determined that the process required by the claims was not a process previously used by human animators. Id. at 1314. Therefore, the claims in McRO used "limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result" over "existing, manual 3-D animation techniques." Id. at 1316. Contrary to McRO, the instant claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea - see the detailed 35 USC 101 analysis above- and the claims do not recite a computer-automated process that uses rules for animators unlike those previously employed by humans or a similar type of improvement. Rather, the present claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea as discussed supra).
The instant claimed invention and Core Wireless have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Core Wireless the Courts determined that the claimed invention was directed to an improved user interface, rather than an abstract idea. The Courts pointed to the Specification, noting that it teaches problems associated with prior art interfaces, especially with respect to displaying information on devices with small screens. The Core Wireless claimed invention improves the displaying of data on devices with small screens. Since the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea, as concluded by the Courts, the claim is not abstract, and therefore part two of the Alice test needs not be carried out because the invention was deemed eligible. Contrary to Core Wireless, the instant claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more , as noted above.
The instant claimed invention and Thales Visionix have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Thales Visionix it was deemed that the claims are patent eligibly since they are not directed to an abstract idea; the claims specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. The mathematical equations are a consequence of the arrangement of the sensors and the unconventional choice of reference frame in order to calculate position and orientation. Far from claiming the equations themselves, the claims seek to protect only the application of physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors as disclosed. As such, these claims are not directed to an abstract idea and thus the claims survive Alice step one. Contrary to Thales Visionix, the pending instant claims do recite an abstract idea, and they do not specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. The pending instant claims do recite an abstract idea and the additional elements do not , alone or in combination, integrate the recite judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec., including the paras noted by the Applicant, that the pending claims, when implemented, improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Amended Title overcome the Title objection
Examiner agrees.
The amended claims recite sufficient structure to avoid 112 f) treatment
See the 35 USC 112 f) claim interpretation above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 112 f) analysis.
Remaining arguments: Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
8/27/2026
Prosecution Insights