DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 8/31/2015 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 5/22/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17-18, 20-23 are amended
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 19 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17-18, 20-23 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17-18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1, 3, 7, 21 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 9, 11, 15, 22 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, and claims 17-18, 20, 23 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 9) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 9) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A computer-implemented method:
[B] initiating a mobile application on a mobile device;
[C] wirelessly communicatively coupling said mobile device with a plurality of beacons defining a geo-fencing area;
[D] automatically determining at said mobile application on said mobile device, based on an invitation received from a point-of-sale beacon of said plurality of beacons, said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon;
[E] automatically presenting, via said mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on a display of said mobile device after said mobile application has determined said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon; and
[F] utilizing said mobile credit account identifier presented on said display of said mobile device to make a mobile payment at said point of sale.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 9) recites: the mobile device is in communication with the beacon ([D]); presenting a credit account identifier ([E]); and making a payment ([F]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 9) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “storage medium,” and “mobile device” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: initiating a mobile application on a mobile device ([B]), wirelessly communicatively coupling said mobile device with a plurality of beacons defining a geo-fencing area ([C]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 9), evaluated individually, as well as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 9) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 9 are deemed ineligible.
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 17 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A mobile device comprising: a memory, the memory comprising: at least one geo-fenced area defining at least a portion of a retail store; and a native mobile application; a display; a biometric sensor; and one or more processors operating on the mobile device, said native mobile application to cause the one or more processors operating on the mobile device
[B] wirelessly communicatively couple said mobile device with a plurality of beacons defining said at least one geo-fenced area;
[C] automatically determine at said native mobile application on said mobile device, based on an invitation received from a point-of-sale beacon of said plurality of beacons, said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon
[D] automatically present, via said native mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device after said native mobile application has determined said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon; and
[E] utilize said mobile credit account identifier automatically displayed present on said display to make a mobile payment at said point of sale.
Independent claim 17 recites: establishing communication between mobile device and a wireless beacon ([C]); presenting a mobile credit account ([D]) and making a payment ([E], which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 17 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “processor”, “memory,” “display,” and “biometric sensor” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: wirelessly coupling a mobile device with a beacon ([B]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 17, evaluated individually, as well as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 17 is deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 3, which is representative of dependent claims 11, 20, recites:
initiating a mobile marketing via said mobile application after said mobile application has determined said mobile device is communicating with said plurality of beacons wherein said mobile marketing is a coupon displayed on said mobile device.
The elements in these dependent claims are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claims continue to recite the identified abstract idea.
The dependent claims elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. It is readily clear that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claims further elaborate on the previously identified abstract idea (providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity).
Therefore, dependent claim 3 (which is representative of dependent claims 11, 20) is deemed ineligible. As a result, it is concluded that the dependent claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 7, which is representative of dependent claims 15, 18, recites:
wherein said credit account identifier identifies mobile payment is provided by a virtual credit account.
The elements in these dependent claims are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claims continue to recite the identified abstract idea.
The dependent claims elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. It is readily clear that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claims further elaborate on the previously identified abstract idea (providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 (which is representative of dependent claims 15, 18) is deemed ineligible. As a result, it is concluded that the dependent claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 21, which is representative of dependent claims 22, recites:
determining a location of said mobile device with respect to said geo-fencing area, said
determining said location comprising:
obtaining location information for said mobile device from at least one of said plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area;
periodically tracking said location of said mobile device with respect to said geofencing area; and
periodically updating a location of said mobile device with respect to said geofencing area;
determining, at said mobile application, said mobile device has entered into said geofencing area; and
automatically presenting a mobile marketing, via said mobile application and on a display of said mobile device when said mobile device enters into said geo-fencing area.
The elements in these dependent claims are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claims continue to recite the identified abstract idea.
The dependent claims elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. It is readily clear that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claims further elaborate on the previously identified abstract idea (providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity).
Therefore, dependent claim 21 (which is representative of dependent claims 22) is deemed ineligible. As a result, it is concluded that the dependent claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 23 recites:
determine, based on location information provided by at least one of said plurality of beacons defining said at least one geo-fenced area, a location of the mobile device with respect to the at least one geo-fenced area;
periodically track said location of said mobile device with respect to said at least one geofenced area;
determining, at said native mobile application, said mobile device has entered into said at least one geo-fenced area; and
automatically display a mobile marketing on said display when said mobile device enters into said at least one geo-fenced area.
The elements in these dependent claims are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claims continue to recite the identified abstract idea.
The dependent claims elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. It is readily clear that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claims further elaborate on the previously identified abstract idea (providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity).
Therefore, dependent claim 23 is deemed ineligible. As a result, it is concluded that the dependent claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
When considered individually, these claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: providing means for making payments over wireless networks; making payments is part of commercial activity. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to ((a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f)). Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17-18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17-18, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnard et al (US 2015/0373482), in view of Beck et al (US 2013/0191213).
Regarding Claims 1, 9 – Barnard discloses: A computer-implemented method for providing mobile loyalty services within a geo-fencing area via a native mobile application, said computer-implemented method comprising:
initiating a mobile application on a mobile device; {see at least fig3, rc209a, rc209b, rc209c, [00630 running different mobile applications}
wirelessly communicatively coupling said mobile device with a plurality of beacons defining a geo-fencing area; {see at least [0316] geo-fence; fig20 [0347] geo-fence; fig12, rc411, rc405, rc407, rc143, [0278] communication using wireless transceivers (based on BRI (MPEP 2111) reads on beacon); [0095], [0124] geographic neighborhood (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on geo-fencing area); [0091] plurality of beacons}
automatically determining at said mobile device, based on an invitation received from a mobile device within the communication range of beacons (reads on the mobile device communicating with the beacon). The reference does not disclose the term “automatically”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2111.05). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Barnard does not explicitly disclose “…based on an invitation received from a point-of-sale beacon …”, however, it is assumed that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the communication has to be initiated by the point of sales device through the beacon – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01; [abstract] he second transceiver being configured to receive beacon signals from a beacon transmitting device within a beacon communications range and further configured to transmit beacon signals to be received by a beacon-enabled device within the beacon communications range. Sensor data and beacon data are used by the interactive applications; fig6, rc667, [0079] wireless beacon antenna (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on point-of-sale beacon)}
Barnard does not disclose; however, Beck discloses:
automatically presenting, via said mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on a display of said mobile device, after said mobile application has determined said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon {see at least fig8, rc181, [0157]-[0167] account identifier is presented. The reference does not disclose the term “automatically”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2111.05). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Beck fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the account identifier could be presented only after the mobile device is in communication with the beacon – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
… point-of sale (POS) … {see at least [0279] location of POS terminals; fig27, rc1503, [0379] POS at merchant location; [0588]-[0589]; fig12, rc143, [0278] wireless portal (reads on beacon}
… mobile account identifier … {see at least fig4, rc141, [0056] account identification device configured to carry account information (reads on account identifier); [0094] personal account number (reads on account identifier)}
utilizing said mobile credit account identifier presented on said display of said mobile device to make a mobile payment at said point of sale. {see at least fig15a, fig15b, fig16a, fig16b [0336]-[0337] mobile payments; fig17, fig18 [0344]-[0345] mobile transactions, mobile payments}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Barnard to include the elements of Beck. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to allow user to make a payment for a purchase. In the instant case, Barnard evidently discloses determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence. Beck is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of displaying a credit account identifier in the same or similar context. Since both determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence, as well as displaying a credit account identifier are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Barnard, as well as Beck would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Barnard / Beck.
Regarding Claims 3, 11, 20 – Barnard, Beck discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 17. Barnard further discloses:
initiating a mobile marketing via said mobile application after said mobile application has determined said mobile device is communicating with said plurality of beacons {see at least [0191] sending coupons to mobile device (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on mobile marketing}
wherein said mobile marketing is a coupon displayed on said mobile device. {see at least [0047] location-based messaging, coupons; [0138] coupons; [0191] server sends coupon data; [0198]; [0201] sending coupons; [0222] receiving coupons; [0231] discount coupons}
Regarding Claims 7, 15, 18 – Barnard, Beck discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 17. Beck further discloses:
wherein said credit account identifier identifies a virtual credit account. {see at least [0043]; fig4, rc146, [0540] credit account. Referring to account as “virtual”, absent any form or structure to distinguish it from any kind of information, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Barnard, Beck to include additional elements of Beck. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to allow user to make a payment for a purchase. In the instant case, Barnard, Beck evidently discloses determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence. Beck is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of credit account in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 17 – Barnard discloses: A mobile device comprising: a memory, the memory comprising at least one geo-fenced area defining at least a portion of a retail store, and a native mobile application; a display; a biometric sensor; and one or more processors operating on the mobile device, said native mobile application to cause the one or more processors operating on the mobile device to: {see at least fig9, rc903, [0100]-[0103]}
wirelessly communicatively couple said mobile device with a plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area; {see at least fig12, rc411, rc405, rc407, rc143, [0278] communication using wireless transceivers; [0091] plurality of beacons }
automatically determine at said native mobile application on said mobile device, based on an invitation received from a mobile device within the communication range of beacons (reads on the mobile device communicating with the beacon). The reference does not disclose the term “automatically”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2111.05). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Barnard does not explicitly disclose “…based on an invitation received from a point-of-sale beacon …”, however, it is assumed that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the communication has to be initiated by the point of sales device through the beacon – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01; [abstract] he second transceiver being configured to receive beacon signals from a beacon transmitting device within a beacon communications range and further configured to transmit beacon signals to be received by a beacon-enabled device within the beacon communications range. Sensor data and beacon data are used by the interactive applications; fig6, rc667, [0079] wireless beacon antenna (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on point-of-sale beacon)}
Barnard does not disclose; however, Beck discloses:
automatically present, via said native mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device after said native mobile application has determined said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon; {see at least fig8, rc181, [0157]-[0167] account identifier is presented. The reference does not disclose the term “automatically”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2111.05). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Beck fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the account identifier could be presented only after the mobile device is in communication with the beacon – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
… point-of sale (POS) … {see at least [0279] location of POS terminals; fig27, rc1503, [0379] POS at merchant location; [0588]-[0589]; fig12, rc143, [0278] wireless portal (reads on beacon}
… mobile account identifier … {see at least fig4, rc141, [0056] account identification device configured to carry account information (reads on account identifier); [0094] personal account number (reads on account identifier)}
utilize said mobile credit account identifier present on said display of said mobile device to make a mobile payment at said point of sale. {see at least fig15a, fig15b, fig16a, fig16b [0336]-[0337] mobile payments; fig17, fig18 [0344]-[0345] mobile transactions, mobile payments}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Barnard to include the elements of Beck. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to allow user to make a payment for a purchase. In the instant case, Barnard evidently discloses determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence. Beck is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of displaying a credit account identifier in the same or similar context. Since both determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence, as well as displaying a credit account identifier are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Barnard, as well as Beck would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Barnard / Beck.
Regarding Claims 21, 22 – Barnard, Beck discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9. Barnard further discloses:
determining a location of said mobile device with respect to said geo-fencing area, {see at least [0102]-[0103] determining mobile device location}
said determining said location comprising:
obtaining location information for said mobile device from at least one of said plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area; {see at least [0102]-[0103] determining mobile device location; [0095] defining a geo-fence; [0096] mobile device location; as further disclosed at fig14, [0142]-[0150] disclose an algorithm for periodically scanning for beacon signals to determine the position of the tracked objects (BSCLAN stays for Beacon, Sensor and Controller Local Area Network)}
periodically tracking said location of said mobile device with respect to said geo-fencing area; and {see at least fig14, [0142]-[0149] tracking mobile device, scanning periodically; as further disclosed at fig14, [0142]-[0150] disclose an algorithm for periodically scanning for beacon signals to determine the position of the tracked objects (BSCLAN stays for Beacon, Sensor and Controller Local Area Network)}
periodically updating a location of said mobile device with respect to said geo- fencing area; {see at least fig14, [0142]-[0149] tracking mobile device, scanning periodically; as further disclosed at fig14, [0142]-[0150] disclose an algorithm for periodically scanning for beacon signals to determine the position of the tracked objects (BSCLAN stays for Beacon, Sensor and Controller Local Area Network)}
determining, at the said application, said mobile device has entered into said geo-fencing area; and {see at least fig9, rc903, rc909b, [0098]-[0103]; fig10, [0107]-[0110] entering the geo-fence; [0168], [0236]}
automatically presenting a mobile marketing, via said native mobile application and on a display of said mobile device when said mobile device enters into said geo-fencing area. {see at least fig10, rc1001, [0107] computer device enters the geo-fence area; as further disclosed at [0231] The advertisements may be linked to beacon signals received by end users so that they may be location-based; for example, an end user may receive a discount coupon from a vendor when they may be within a certain distance of one of the vendor's locations (“certain distance” reads on the mobile device being in the geofenced area); [0047] location-based messaging, such as coupons; fig13, rc1309, rc1371, [0138] translates beacon ID to messages (reads on being within the geofenced area); [0191] The application server may send coupons data, etc. to the mobile device 109 based on its location; [0231] end user may receive a discount coupon from a vendor when they may be within a certain distance of one of the vendor's locations; [0270] transmitting beacon signals that may be used by the receiving devices to receive other messages (e.g., coupons, control values or settings, etc., from a service platform computing device, etc.), scanning for beacon signals transmitted by other devices within the lighting infrastructure. **Examiner Note – The claim element is disclosed also by Beck at fig20, rc1102, rc1104, rc1105, rc1106, rc1107 [0349] user enters the proximity of a merchant location, …, offer is determined based on position of a user in the proximity of a merchant physical location ([0347] a space reached by RF signals from radio devices the merchant location or an arbitrary space around the merchant location, for example defined as a "geo-fence"); fig22, rc1201, rc1203, rc1204, [0360] user enters proximity of a merchant location, [0361] which merchants may make offers to user by determining in which merchant location proximities the user is; [0316] predetermined region containing the merchant locations, i.e. geo-fencing**}
Regarding Claims 23 – Barnard, Beck discloses the limitations of Claims 17. Barnard further discloses:
determine, based on location information provided by at least one of said plurality of beacons defining said at least one geo-fenced area, a location of the mobile device with respect to the at least one geo-fenced area; {see at least [0102]-[0103] determining mobile device location; [0095] defining a geo-fence; [0096] mobile device location}
periodically track said location of said mobile device with respect to said at least one geo- fenced area; {see at least [0102]-[0103] determining mobile device location; [0095] defining a geo-fence; [0096] mobile device location; as further disclosed at fig14, [0142]-[0150] disclose an algorithm for periodically scanning for beacon signals to determine the position of the tracked objects (BSCLAN stays for Beacon, Sensor and Controller Local Area Network)}
determining, at the said native mobile application, said mobile device has entered into said at least one geo-fenced area; and {see at least [0102]-[0103] determining mobile device location; [0095] defining a geo-fence; [0096] mobile device location}
automatically display a mobile marketing on said display when said mobile device enters into said at least one geo-fenced area. {see at least [0049]-[0050] advertising available resources; [0055] advertisement packet; [0231]-[0234]; [0269]}
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20110171939 A1 2011-07-14 17 Deliwala; Manish K. et al. SYSTEM, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PROVIDING CUSTOMER SERVICE ON A MOBILE DEVICE - A system, method, and computer program product for providing customer services on a mobile device can provide a user-interface on a mobile device to display one or more customer service options, store state information of the customer's interaction with the user-interface, and provide a user-interface element that provides the customer an option to contact a customer service agent. In response to the customer's exercising the option to contact the customer service agent, the stored state information is sent to the customer service agent.
US 20150373482 A1 2015-12-24 56 Barnard; Chris et al. APPLICATION FRAMEWORK FOR INTERACTIVE WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS - In various example embodiments, a system and method for a light sensor network that provides an application framework for interactive applications that use location-based information are presented. In example embodiments, the light sensor network plurality a plurality of lighting nodes and a plurality of sensor controller nodes (SCNs) positioned within a wireless communications range of one or more of the plurality of LNs. A LN within the light sensor network plurality a communication interface having a first transceiver and a second transceiver. The first transceiver being configured to exchange communication signals to and from a service platform over a wide area network (WAN) via a lighting gateway node. The second transceiver being configured to receive beacon signals from a beacon transmitting device within a beacon communications range and further configured to transmit beacon signals to be received by a beacon-enabled device within the beacon communications range. Sensor data and beacon data are used by the interactive applications.
US 20150324877 A1 2015-11-12 21 Shaw; Jeffrey Barrett et al. ECOMMERCE SYSTEM FOR MARKETING MIXED-LOTS OF DISTRESSED INVENTORY - An ecommerce system for marketing mixed lots of distressed inventory, as embodied in various systems, methods, and non-transitory computer-readable storage media, is provided. The system may generate and communicate offers for mixed lots of distressed inventory. Individual buyers may join together to form buying teams that may collectively purchase a mixed lot. The system may charge buyers and distribute portions of the purchased lot, some of which may be upgraded items, to individual buyers based on respective levels of demand indicated by each buyer. The system may also plurality a network-based inventory tracking function that permits buyers to store electronic representations or records of purchased items in a remote storage location. The system may then aggregate the purchased items for shipping at a later time.
US 20160292410 A1 2016-10-06 13 Alten; Hao et al. Authenticating User and Launching an Application on a Single Intentional User Gesture - Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for combining authentication and application shortcut. An example method including detecting, by a device having a touchscreen, a gesture by a user on the touchscreen while the device is in a sleep mode; classifying the gesture, by the device, as an intentional gesture or an accidental gesture; maintaining the device in the sleep mode if the gesture is classified as an accidental gesture; responsive to determining, by the device, that the gesture matches one or more confirmed gestures stored on the device based at least in part on a set of predefined criteria, if the gesture is classified as an intentional gesture: recognizing the user as authenticated; and without requiring additional user input, selecting an application, from a plurality of different applications, according to the gesture and launching the application on the device.
US 20150161613 A1 2015-06-11 14 ZHANG; YUMIAO METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AUTHENTICATIONS AND ONLINE TRANSACTIONS - A method and system for online authentication and payment are disclosed. The method including collecting facial data of a user in real time, the user being associated with a user account; comparing the collected facial data with facial data associated with the user account; and receiving data related to a purchase order, the purchase order data including a payment account number and a payment amount. The method further including sending the purchase order data to a payment module and making, by the payment module, a payment based on the purchase order data. The method and system consistent with the present disclosure may authenticate a user before conducting an online transaction and improve the user experience in conducting online transactions.
US 9269083 B1 2016-02-23 22 Jarajapu; Ravindra et al. Mobile device payment - A method including receiving, from a mobile device, a payment method and a payment amount. The method also can including validating the payment amount. The method further can including generating a gift card for the payment amount. The gift card can including a gift card identifier. The method additionally can include sending the gift card identifier to the mobile device. The method further can including displaying the gift card identifier on the mobile device. Other embodiments are provided.
US 9916620 B2 2018-03-13 49 Del Vecchio; Orin et al. Systems and methods for providing balance notifications in an augmented reality environment - The disclosed embodiments including methods and systems for providing account status notifications. The disclosed embodiments including, for example, a device for providing account status notifications including a memory storing software instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the software instructions to perform operations. In one aspect, the operations may including receiving account status notification information for a first account associated with a user. The account status notification information may be generated based on one or more notification rules and account information associated with the first account. The operations may also including generating, based on the received account status notification information, a first account status indicator that provides a status of a first account parameter associated with the first account that is presented, via a device component and within a field-of-view of the user, without a user request to receive the status of the first account parameter.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “The automated process removes the prior process of a user accessing the mobile device, searching for the payment account within the mobile device, finding and finally displaying the payment account information at the point of sale. Instead, by automating the process, the user will be able to simply present the mobile device at the point of sale as the payment account information will already be automatically displayed thereon. Thus, the additional elements effect improvement to the functioning of the mobile device.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears that applicant refers to the provisions of MPEP 2106.05(a).
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Providing loyalty services is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, an important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits the Step 2B analysis provided herein results in the answer being Yes. The additional elements in the claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action determines at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 9) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 9 are deemed ineligible.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 17 is deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits that the prior art does not disclose: "automatically determining at said mobile application on said mobile device, based on an invitation received from a point-of-sale beacon of said plurality of beacons, said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon"
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Barnard discloses:
automatically determine at said native mobile application on said mobile device, based on an invitation received from a mobile device within the communication range of beacons (reads on the mobile device communicating with the beacon). The reference does not disclose the term “automatically”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2111.05). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Barnard does not explicitly disclose “…based on an invitation received from a point-of-sale beacon …”, however, it is assumed that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the communication has to be initiated by the point of sales device through the beacon – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01; [abstract] he second transceiver being configured to receive beacon signals from a beacon transmitting device within a beacon communications range and further configured to transmit beacon signals to be received by a beacon-enabled device within the beacon communications range. Sensor data and beacon data are used by the interactive applications; fig6, rc667, [0079] wireless beacon antenna (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on point-of-sale beacon)}
Therefore, it is concluded that Barnard discloses the amended claim limitation. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits that the prior art does not disclose: “automatically presenting, via said mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on a display of said mobile device after said mobile application has determined said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon."
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Beck discloses:
automatically present, via said native mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device after said native mobile application has determined said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon; {see at least fig8, rc181, [0157]-[0167] account identifier is presented. The reference does not disclose the term “automatically”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2111.05). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability; Beck fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the account identifier could be presented only after the mobile device is in communication with the beacon – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
Therefore, it is concluded that Beck discloses the amended claim limitation. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “First and foremost, the Claim does not recite communication between the mobile device and the point of sales device occurring through the beacon. Instead, the Claim clearly states communication between the mobile device and the point of sales is via the visual display of the mobile device”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The two aspects are not mutually exclusive. The connection between the mobile device and point of sale device is a wireless type communication, which has to occur through the beacon. Utilizing a display to provide information to the receiving end, does not preempt the wireless connection. Indeed, without the wireless connection, i.e., through a beacon nothing can be displayed on the receiving end. Therefore, it is concluded that both aspects of the communication process between the mobile device and the point of sales device, i.e., wireless communication and information display are accounted for.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Second, the Claim does not disclose a single beacon. It discloses "wirelessly communicatively coupling, a mobile device with a plurality of beacons defining a geo-fencing area."”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Barnard discloses: [0091] plurality of beacons
Therefore, Barnard discloses the claim element. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Office Action has provided no logical reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill would assume a mobile device communicating with a plurality of beacons would HAVE TO INITIATE any activity with only a single one of the plurality of beacons. I.e., 'it is assumed that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the communication has to be initiated by the point of sales device through the beacon.’”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
A beacon is just a passive link in the connection between the mobile device and the wireless point of sale device. The rejection in the instant office action does not disclose that the communication has to occur just through one beacon, although, technologically, the communication always occurs with only one of the plurality of beacons.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
