Patent 7305442
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-pro
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
An analysis of the prior art cited during the prosecution of US patent 7,305,442 reveals several key references. Below are the most relevant citations and an assessment of their potential impact on the patent's claims. The core inventive concept of the '442 patent is the combination of user authorization with a compound triggering event (specifically, the device being both "idle" and "substantially stationary") to determine the timing of advertisement delivery or display on a mobile device.
Key Prior Art Analysis
1. U.S. Patent 6,892,354 B1 ("the '354 patent")
- Full Citation: U.S. Patent 6,892,354, "Method of advertising on line during a communication link idle time," assigned to Sony Corporation.
- Filing Date: April 16, 1997
- Brief Description: The '354 patent describes a method for delivering advertisements to a user's computer during periods of inactivity or "idle time" in an online session. It discloses detecting when a communication link is idle for a predetermined duration and then using that idle time to transmit and display advertising data. The system is designed to utilize bandwidth that would otherwise be wasted.
- Potential Anticipation Analysis:
- This patent is highly relevant as it explicitly teaches using an "idle" state as a trigger for sending advertisements.
- However, the '354 patent does not appear to teach or suggest the second required trigger: that the terminal must also be "substantially stationary." Its teachings are focused on bandwidth utilization on a communication link, not the physical state or movement of the device.
- Furthermore, while it mentions user profiles, it does not explicitly disclose the pre-delivery "advertising authorization request" and "reply" sequence required by the claims of the '442 patent. The advertising appears to be a feature of the online service itself rather than something authorized on a case-by-case basis via a specific request.
- Conclusion: The '354 patent discloses the "idle" trigger but fails to disclose the compound trigger of "idle AND substantially stationary" or the specific authorization request/reply mechanism. Therefore, it would likely not anticipate claims 1, 7, or 9.
2. U.S. Patent 5,852,775 A ("the '775 patent")
- Full Citation: U.S. Patent 5,852,775, "Cellular telephone advertising system," assigned to Earthweb, Inc.
- Filing Date: September 12, 1996
- Brief Description: The '775 patent discloses a system for providing advertisements to cellular telephone users in exchange for free or discounted airtime. Users agree to receive ads, and the system delivers them to the phone's screen. It mentions that ads can be displayed when the phone is turned on or during idle periods between calls.
- Potential Anticipation Analysis:
- This patent discloses the concept of user authorization, as the user explicitly signs up for the service to receive advertising in exchange for a benefit. This could be argued to meet the spirit of the "authorization request" and "reply."
- It also discloses using an "idle" state as a time to display advertisements.
- However, like the '354 patent, the '775 patent does not teach or suggest the "substantially stationary" limitation. The system does not monitor the phone's movement or lack thereof as a condition for displaying the ad. The focus is on the phone's communication status (idle), not its physical location or velocity.
- Conclusion: The '775 patent teaches user opt-in and an "idle" trigger, getting closer to the '442 claims. However, the absence of the "substantially stationary" condition means it does not anticipate claims 1, 7, or 9, which require both triggers to be met.
3. U.S. Patent 6,647,257 B2 ("the '257 patent")
- Full Citation: U.S. Patent 6,647,257, "System and method for providing targeted messages based on wireless mobile location," assigned to Leap Wireless International, Inc.
- Filing Date: January 21, 1998
- Brief Description: This patent describes delivering targeted messages (including advertisements) to mobile users based on their geographical location. The system can determine a user's location and send relevant information, such as an advertisement for a nearby business. It discusses sending messages when a user enters a specific geographic area.
- Potential Anticipation Analysis:
- The '257 patent is highly relevant to the location-based aspect of the '442 patent's claims. Determining that a user has entered a specific area is a form of location tracking. While not identical to being "substantially stationary," it relates to the user's physical position. One could argue that dwelling in a location for a period could imply being stationary.
- However, the patent does not explicitly require the device to be "idle." The trigger for the message is entering a geographical zone, regardless of whether the user is in a call or actively using the device.
- It also lacks the specific request/reply authorization sequence. Like the '775 patent, authorization is based on subscribing to the location-based service itself.
- Conclusion: The '257 patent discloses location-based triggering but fails to disclose the "idle" state trigger or the specific request/reply authorization process. It therefore does not anticipate claims 1, 7, or 9.
Summary Table
| Prior Art Reference | User Authorization | "Idle" Trigger | "Substantially Stationary" Trigger | Potential to Anticipate Claims 1, 7, 9? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US 6,892,354 B1 | No (Not as claimed) | Yes | No | No |
| US 5,852,775 A | Yes (Via service signup) | Yes | No | No |
| US 6,647,257 B2 | Yes (Via service signup) | No | No (Teaches location, not lack of motion) | No |
Based on this analysis of the references cited on the face of the patent, no single reference appears to anticipate the independent claims of US 7,305,442. The novelty of the '442 patent lies in the specific combination of three key elements: (1) a distinct authorization request, (2) a trigger based on the device being idle, and (3) a trigger based on the device being substantially stationary. While prior art references disclose one or two of these elements in isolation, none appear to disclose the complete combination required by the independent claims.
Generated 5/12/2026, 9:44:55 PM