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 1/29/2026.
Claims 1, 9, 17 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) without significantly more.
Per Step 1 and Step 2A of the two-step eligibility analysis, independent Claim 1, Claim 9 and Claim 17 and the therefrom dependent claims are directed respectively to a computer implemented method, to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium and to a system. Thus, on its face, each such independent claim and the therefrom dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
However, Claim 1, (which is repeated in Claim 9) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites: receiving a first user authentication to unlock said mobile device said first user authentication comprising biometric sensing selected from the group consisting of: thumb print scanning, voice detection, heart rate monitoring, and eye/cornea detection; receiving a second user authentication to allow access to said native mobile application; automatically displaying, after said determining said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon and receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device; utilizing said mobile credit account identifier automatically displayed on said display of said mobile device to make a mobile payment at said point of sale.
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to a sales activities or behaviors, business relationships process, i.e. a process aimed at providing loyalty services to users located in certain areas along with means for making payments; making payments is part of commercial activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. (A) In particular, stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, the remaining claim elements of the independent claims are directed to: wirelessly communicatively coupling, a mobile device with at least one beacon of a plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area; automatically determining at 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 a point-of-sale beacon.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent receipt, transmission and general computation claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Additionally recited claim elements are: the beacons; the geo-fencing area; additional security parameters; the authenticating of the user; a global positioning system (GPS). While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, they do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
(C) The recited computing elements, i.e. the computer-readable storage medium, the native mobile application are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, like obtaining data, interpreting the obtained data and providing results, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, 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). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (A) Stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, the remaining claim elements of the independent claims are directed to: wirelessly communicatively coupling, a mobile device with at least one beacon of a plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area; automatically determining at 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 a point-of-sale beacon.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Furthermore, the independent claims contain descriptive limitations, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of: the beacons; the geo-fencing area; additional security parameters; the authenticating of the user; a global positioning system (GPS). However, these elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claimed invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
(C) After stripping away the abstract idea claim elements, the only remaining elements of the independent claims are the computing elements, i.e. claim elements directed to the computer-readable storage medium; the native mobile application. When considered individually, these additional claim elements serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. They do not constitute “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”. (MPEP 2106.05(a)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of any of these areas.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites: receiving a first user authentication to unlock said mobile device said first user authentication comprising biometric sensing selected from the group consisting of: thumb print scanning, voice detection, heart rate monitoring, and eye/cornea detection; automatically determine at a 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 a point-of-sale beacon of said plurality of beacons; receive a second user authentication to allow access to said native mobile application; automatically display, after said determining said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon and receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device; utilize said mobile credit account identifier automatically displayed on said display of said mobile device to make a mobile payment at said point of sale. The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to a sales activities or behaviors, business relationships process, i.e., a process aimed at providing loyalty services to users located in certain areas along with means for making payments; making payments is part of commercial activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g., agreements in form of marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. (A) In particular, stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, the remaining positively recited elements of the independent claims are directed to: wirelessly communicatively coupling, a mobile device with at least one beacon of a plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent receipt. transmission and general computation claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) The non-positively recited claim elements are: a biometric sensor, a global positioning system; the beacons; the geo-fencing area; additional security parameters; authenticating the user. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, they do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
(C) The recited computing elements, i.e., a display; a plurality of beacons is recited at a high-level of generality, i.e., as generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, like obtaining data, interpreting the obtained data and providing results, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, 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). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (A) Stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, the remaining positively recited elements of the independent claims are directed to: wirelessly communicatively coupling, a mobile device with at least one beacon of a plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Furthermore, the independent claims contain descriptive limitations, not positively recited limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of: a biometric sensor, a global positioning system; the beacons; the geo-fencing area; additional security parameters; authenticating the user. However, these elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claimed invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
(C) After stripping away the abstract idea claim elements, the additional positively recited steps and the non-positively recited claim elements, the only remaining elements of the independent claims are the computing elements, i.e. claim elements directed to a display; a plurality of beacons. When considered individually, these additional claim elements serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. They do not constitute “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”. (MPEP 2106.05(a)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of any of these areas.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination.
Dependent Claim 21 (which is repeated in Claims 22) is directed to additional claim elements, such as to:
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 said at least one beacon of said plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area; periodically tracking said location of said mobile device with respect to said geo-fencing area; and periodically updating a location of said mobile device with respect to said geo- fencing area; determining said mobile device has entered into said geo-fencing area; and 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.
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to a sales activities or behaviors, business relationships process, i.e., a process aimed at providing users located in certain areas means for making marketing offers, like providing coupons or ads; making marketing offers is part of commercial activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 23 is directed to additional claim elements, such as to:
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 geo-fenced area; determine 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 limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to a sales activities or behaviors, business relationships process, i.e., a process aimed at providing users located in certain areas means for making marketing offers, like providing coupons or ads; making marketing offers is part of commercial activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 3 (which are repeated in Claims 11, 20) and dependent Claim7 (which is repeated in Claims 15, 18) are not directed to any abstract ideas and are not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these non-positively recited claims provide further descriptive limitations of elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of: the mobile marketing, the mobile payment. However, these elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules, as disclosed in the application specification in fig1 and [0023]-[0032], include among others: mobile device; display; processor; memory; GPS; camera; credit account; payment system; loyalty program; analytics engine, database.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
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), in further view of Alten (US 2016/0063230).
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:
wirelessly communicatively coupling, a mobile device with a plurality of beacons defining said 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)}
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); 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)}
automatically displaying, after said determining said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon and receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application, credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device through said native mobile application when said location of said mobile device, as obtained by said native mobile application from each of said plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area, is proximate to a point of sale; fig2, [0347] account identification, geo-fence, radius, close to point of sale. Barnard fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation (“after receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application”); however, it is assumed that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that access is allowed only after identification – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01. Barnard discloses the claimed limitation except for “automatically displaying.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to automize the displaying, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.; Barnard fails to explicitly disclose: “a mobile credit account identifier.” However, the difference between the instant application and the prior art is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the recited steps. The steps of the claim would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not further limit the scope of the claim and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at filing time to consider the credit account to be mobile, because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the account does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.}
Barnard does not disclose; however, Beck discloses:
… 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 automatically displayed 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}
wherein said second user authentication is determined by a global positioning system (GPS) to determine physical location information for said mobile device and wherein said physical location information includes a time and date stamp; {see at least fig4, rc143, [0278] the mobile device includes a global positioning system (GPS) receiver; [0361], [table00002] time stamp, location; [0095], [0100]-[0102] ip address, timestamp; [table1], [table2], [table6], [table8], [table9]; [0393] timestamp, user position. The claim element “to determine physical location information for said mobile device” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. 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 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.
Barnard, Beck does not disclose, however, Alten discloses:
receiving a first user authentication to unlock said mobile device; {see at least [0003] user to enter passcode to unlock the device; [0120] user is authenticated after the device has been unlocked; authenticating the user is a separate action}
said first user authentication comprising biometric sensing selected from the group consisting of: thumb print scanning, voice detection, heart rate monitoring, and eye/cornea detection; {see at least [0077] biometric data, fingerprint gesture, fingerprint sensor (reads on thumb print scanning); [0117] voice recognition, retina scans}
receiving a second user authentication to allow access to said native mobile application; {see at least [0005] For instance, one fingerprint gesture (or sequence) can unlock a device and present a home screen while a different fingerprint gesture (or sequence) can unlock the device and launch one or more specified application programs (also referred to applications or apps), such as an email application. Different fingerprints or fingerprint gestures (or sequences) can be used to unlock different sets of data and/or apps.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Barnard, Beck to include the elements of Alten. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to protect the credit account even after the device has been unlocked. In the instant case, Barnard, Beck evidently discloses determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence. Alten is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of unlocking the mobile device and authenticating the user in the same or similar context. Since both determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence, as well as unlocking the mobile device and authenticating the user 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, Beck, as well as Alten 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 / Alten.
Regarding Claims 3, 11, 20 – Barnard, Beck, Alten discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 17. Barnard further discloses:
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, Alten discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 17. Beck further discloses:
wherein said mobile payment is provided by 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, Alten 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, Alten 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 coupling, a 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}
automatically determine 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); 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)}
automatically display, after said determining said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon and receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application, credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device through said native mobile application when said location of said mobile device, as obtained by said native mobile application from each of said plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area, is proximate to a point of sale; fig2, [0347] account identification, geo-fence, radius, close to point of sale. Barnard fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation (“after receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application”); however, it is assumed that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that access is allowed only after identification – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01. Barnard discloses the claimed limitation except for “automatically displaying.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to automize the displaying, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.; Barnard fails to explicitly disclose: “a mobile credit account identifier.” However, the difference between the instant application and the prior art is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the recited steps. The steps of the claim would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not further limit the scope of the claim and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at filing time to consider the credit account to be mobile, because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the account does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.}
Barnard does not disclose; however, Beck discloses:
… 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 automatically displayed 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.
Barnard, Beck does not disclose, however, Alten discloses:
receiving a first user authentication to unlock said mobile device; {see at least [0003] user to enter passcode to unlock the device; [0120] user is authenticated after the device has been unlocked; authenticating the user is a separate action}
said first user authentication comprising biometric sensing selected from the group consisting of: thumb print scanning, voice detection, heart rate monitoring, and eye/cornea detection; {see at least [0077] biometric data, fingerprint gesture, fingerprint sensor (reads on thumb print scanning); [0117] voice recognition, retina scans}
receiving a second user authentication to allow access to said native mobile application; {see at least [0005] For instance, one fingerprint gesture (or sequence) can unlock a device and present a home screen while a different fingerprint gesture (or sequence) can unlock the device and launch one or more specified application programs (also referred to applications or apps), such as an email application. Different fingerprints or fingerprint gestures (or sequences) can be used to unlock different sets of data and/or apps.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Barnard, Beck to include the elements of Alten. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to protect the credit account even after the device has been unlocked. In the instant case, Barnard, Beck evidently discloses determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence. Alten is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of unlocking the mobile device and authenticating the user in the same or similar context. Since both determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence, as well as unlocking the mobile device and authenticating the user 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, Beck, as well as Alten 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 / Alten.
Regarding Claims 21, 22 – Barnard, Beck, Alten 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 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, Alten 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)}
determine 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 “Applicant respectfully submits even, assuming arguendo, the Claim does recite the judicially recognized exception of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity - Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)", the Claim amounts to significantly more.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, based on the claim language (“a mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device; utilizing said mobile credit account identifier automatically displayed on said display of said mobile device to make a mobile payment at said point of sale”) and in light of the specification (“Providing mobile loyalty services in a geo-fencing area …”), the claims on the instant application are undoubtedly directed to commercial services.
Second, the eligibility analysis in the instant office action has determined at Step 2B:
“Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. …”
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Here, similar to DDR Holdings, the Claim includes the additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modify conventional mobile device/beacon interactions to dynamically produce automated activities when the mobile device is within range of a specifically assigned beacon which differ from the conventional interactions of one of ordinary skill taking part in a sales activity/behavior.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It is not proper practice to go and find a single Court decision and use the general arguments from that decision to determine eligibility of a particular claimed invention, unless the particular claimed invention uniquely matches (i.e. a case that involves identical or similar facts or similar legal issues) the subject matter of the claimed invention in the Court decision, which in the instant situation it does not. Each application has to be considered on its own merits.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Instead, the additional elements (which are not part of the abstract idea of commercial interactions) provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer (e.g., customer's mobile device) including: …”
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).
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
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 “That is, by including the additional features that improve the functioning of the computer, the Claim elements qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See responses here above.
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 “With respect to Barnard, Applicant has reviewed Barnard including the cited portions and does not understand Barnard to disclose or suggest anything with respect to: I. A point of sale beacon or the like within the beacon arrays disclosed in the discussion.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The instant office action discloses:
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); 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)} as disclosed by Barnard
… 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} as disclosed by Beck
Therefore, Barnard, Beck disclose the claim elements. The point of sale register in Barnard can be wirelessly accessed by customers, which represents the essence of the claim limitation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “With respect to Barnard, Applicant has reviewed Barnard including the cited portions and does not understand Barnard to disclose or suggest anything with respect to: II. automatically displaying, after said determining said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon and after receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The instant office action discloses:
automatically displaying, after said determining said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon and receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application, credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device through said native mobile application when said location of said mobile device, as obtained by said native mobile application from each of said plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area, is proximate to a point of sale; fig2, [0347] account identification, geo-fence, radius, close to point of sale. Barnard fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation (“after receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application”); however, it is assumed that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that access is allowed only after identification – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01. Barnard discloses the claimed limitation except for “automatically displaying.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to automize the displaying, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.; Barnard fails to explicitly disclose: “a mobile credit account identifier.” However, the difference between the instant application and the prior art is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the recited steps. The steps of the claim would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not further limit the scope of the claim and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at filing time to consider the credit account to be mobile, because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the account does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.} as disclosed by Barnard.
… 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)} as disclosed by Beck.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant does not understand Barnard, Beck or Alten to disclose or suggest "wherein said second user authentication is determined by a global positioning system (GPS) to determine physical location information for said mobile device and wherein said physical location information includes a time and date stamp" as is recited in each of newly amended Independent Claims 1, 9 and 17.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The instant office action discloses:
wherein said second user authentication is determined by a global positioning system (GPS) to determine physical location information for said mobile device and wherein said physical location information includes a time and date stamp; {see at least fig4, rc143, [0278] the mobile device includes a global positioning system (GPS) receiver; [0361], [table00002] time stamp, location; [0095], [0100]-[0102] ip address, timestamp; [table1], [table2], [table6], [table8], [table9]; [0393] timestamp, user position. The claim element “to determine physical location information for said mobile device” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.} as disclosed by Beck.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “For each of the above reasons in singular and as combined, Applicant respectfully submits Barnard fails to teach or render obvious the features, …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See the rejection of the claim elements in the instant office action.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “With respect to Beck, Applicant respectfully submits Beck has not been relied upon to teach or render obvious the claimed features, …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Indeed, the limitation: “receiving a first user authentication to unlock said mobile device, SAID FIRST USER AUTHENTICATION COMPRISING BIOMETRIC SENSING SELECTED FROM THE GROUP CONSISTING OF: THUMB PRINT SCANNING, VOICE DETECTION, HEART RA TE MONITORING, AND EYE/CORNEA DETECTION;” is disclosed by Alten, while the limitation “
The limitation “receiving a second user authentication to allow access to said native mobile application, wherein said second user authentication is determined by a global positioning system (GPS) to determine physical location information for said mobile device and wherein said physical location information includes a time and date stamp;” is disclosed by Beck.
Therefore, Barnard, Beck discloses the claim limitations. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “With respect to Alten, Applicant respectfully submits Alten has also not been relied upon to teach or render obvious the claimed the features, receiving a first user authentication to unlock said mobile device, SAID FIRST USER AUTHENTICATION COMPRISING BIOMETRIC SENSING SELECTED FROM THE GROUP CONSISTING OF: THUMB PRINT SCANNING, VOICE DETECTION, HEART RA TE MONITORING, AND EYE/CORNEA DETECTION”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Alten discloses:
said first user authentication comprising biometric sensing selected from the group consisting of: thumb print scanning, voice detection, heart rate monitoring, and eye/cornea detection; {see at least [0077] biometric data, fingerprint gesture, fingerprint sensor (reads on thumb print scanning); [0117] voice recognition, retina scans}
Therefore, Alten discloses the emended claim limitation. 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.
Conclusion
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.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. 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 3698