Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/06/2025 has been entered.
This office action is responsive to RCE filed on 05/06/2025. Claims 1-14 are pending examination.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,132,732. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter, perform similar method steps and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other inventions.
Application number: 17461903
1. A method comprising:generating a centralized storage mechanism for data of a mobile device;recording activities of the mobile device;recording an accessory that is associated with the activities;receiving, from an application on the mobile device, a service plan associated with the mobile device;creating a set of profiles associated with the mobile device, wherein the set of profiles includes the activities, accessory, and service plan;comparing the set of profiles to a set of peer profiles that are associated with a different mobile device;determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles; andtransmitting an offer to the mobile device, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different.
Patent number: 11,132,7321. A method comprising:
creating a catalog associated with a mobile device;
recording data associated with the mobile device and storing the data in the catalog, the data comprising data selected from the group consisting of activity data, data associated with accessories used with the mobile device, service plans or service modules data;
identifying a service plan if a profile of cataloged activities and a profile of cataloged accessories match a given peer and the profile of cataloged service plans or modules does not match the given peer;
identifying an accessory if the profile of cataloged activities and the profile of cataloged service plans or modules matches a given peer and the profile of cataloged accessories does not match the given peer;
and identifying an activity if the profile of cataloged accessories and the profile of cataloged service plans or modules matches a given peer and the profile of cataloged activities does not match the given peer
identifying the mobile device by determining one of a vendor identifier (VID) or a product identifier (PID), determining one or more drivers that have a driver VID or driver PTD associated with the VID or PID;
and loading selected functional elements associated with the mobile device and the one or more drivers in milliseconds;
creating a set of profiles associated with the mobile device based on the catalog and identified mobile device;
associating each profile of the set of profiles with a respective different type of the data;
comparing the set of profiles to one or more sets of peer profiles that are associated with a peer mobile device to determine if at least one new item can be offered to a user of the mobile device;
selecting a peer from a plurality of peers, wherein each peer is associated with the one or more sets of peer profiles based on the comparing wherein the peer has a set of peer profiles including a first peer profile matching a profile in the set of profiles and a second peer profile not matching any of the profiles in the set of profiles;
identifying one or more new items to offer to the user of the mobile device based on the second peer profile; and
transmitting an offer to the mobile device, the offer including the one or more new items.
8. An apparatus comprising:a processor; anda storage medium for tangibly storing thereon program logic for execution by the processor, the stored program logic comprising:generating a centralized storage mechanism for data of a mobile device;recording activities of the mobile device; recording an accessory that is associated with the activities; receiving, from an application on the mobile device, a service plan associated with the mobile device; creating a set of profiles associated with the mobile device, wherein the set of profiles includes the activities, accessory, and service plan; comparing the set of profiles to a set of peer profiles that are associated with a different mobile device; determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles; and transmitting an offer to the mobile device, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different.
7. An apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a storage medium for tangibly storing thereon program logic for execution by the processor, the stored program logic comprising:
logic for creating a catalog associated with a mobile device;
logic for recording data associated with the mobile device and storing the data in the catalog, the data comprising data selected from the group consisting of activity data, data associated with accessories used with the mobile device, service plans or service modules data;
logic for identifying a service plan if a profile of cataloged activities and the profile of cataloged accessories match a given peer and the profile of cataloged service plans or modules does not match the given peer;
logic for identifying an accessory if the profile of cataloged activities and the profile of cataloged service plans or modules matches a given peer and the profile of cataloged accessories does not match the given peer;
logic for identifying an activity if the profile of cataloged accessories and the profile of cataloged service plans or modules matches a given peer and the profile of cataloged activities does not match the given peer;
logic for identifying the mobile device by determining one of a vendor identifier (VID) or a product identifier (PID), determining one or more drivers that have a driver VID or driver PID associated with the VID or PID;
logic for loading selected functional elements associated with the mobile device and the one or more drivers in milliseconds;
logic for creating a set of profiles associated with the mobile device based on the catalog and identified mobile device;
logic for associating each profile of the set of profiles with a respective different type of the data;
logic for comparing the set of profiles to one or more sets of peer profiles that are associated with a peer mobile device to determine if at least one new item can be offered to a user of the mobile device;
logic for selecting a peer from a plurality of peers, wherein each peer is associated with the one or more sets of peer profiles based on the comparing wherein the peer has a set of peer profiles including a first peer profile matching a profile in the set of profiles and a second peer profile not matching any of the profiles in the set of profiles;
logic for identifying one or more new items to offer to the user of the mobile device based on the second peer profile; and
logic for transmitting an offer to the mobile device, the offer including the one or more new items.
14. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium for tangibly storing computer program instructions capable of being executed by a computer processor, the computer program instructions defining the steps of: receiving, at a content exchange executing on a mobile device, a request for content from a mobile application displayed on the mobile device; querying, by the content exchange, a data store of available content, the data store of available content populated with one or more notifications received by other mobile applications installed on the mobile device;identifying, by the content exchange, a responsive notification for the request for content based on the querying, the content item identified based on bid parameters associated with the one or more notifications; and transmitting, by the content exchange, the responsive notification to the mobile application.
12. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for tangibly storing computer program instructions capable of being executed by a computer processor, the computer program instructions defining steps of:
executing, on a mobile device, a content exchange and a mobile application;
receiving, at the content exchange, a request for content from the mobile application displayed on the mobile device, the request for content including a size and content type;
querying, by the content exchange, a data store of available content, the data store of available content populated with one or more notifications received by other mobile applications installed on the mobile device, the notifications comprising push notifications received on the mobile device from an external computing device;
identifying, by the content exchange, a notification for the request for content based on the querying;
reformatting, by the content exchange, the notification into a responsive content item based on the size and the content type in the request for content; and
transmitting, by the content exchange, the responsive content item to the mobile application in response to the request.
As to the independent claims:
Limitations presented in claim 2 is an obvious variation of additional limitations presented in Patent No. 11,132,732 claim 1.
Instant claim 3 is fully disclosed in claim 2 of the Patent No. 11,132,732.
Instant claim 4 is fully disclosed in claim 5 of the Patent No. 11,132,732.
Instant claim 6 is fully disclosed in claim 14 of the Patent No. 11,132,732.
Limitations presented in claim 9 is an obvious variation of additional limitations presented in Patent No. 11,132,732 claim 7.
Instant claim 10 is fully disclosed in claim 8 of the Patent No. 11,132,732.
Instant claim 11 is fully disclosed in claim 12 of the Patent No. 11,132,732.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the changes above in order to cover slightly broader limitations. Furthermore, the claimed elements perform the same function as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 8 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, and 8 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-14 are directed to recording activities of a mobile device, comparing plans from different set of peer profiles and transmitting an offer to a mobile device based on comparison. Specifically, claim(s) 1, and 8 recite(s) generating a centralized data; recording activities; recording activities; receiving, from an application, a service plan; creating a set of profiles, wherein the set of profiles includes the activities, accessory, and service plan; comparing the set of profiles to a set of peer profiles; determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles; and transmitting an offer, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
The Claim limitations are listed under Methods Of Organizing Human Activity, and grouped as following:
generating a centralized data; recording activities; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
recording activities; receiving, from an application, a service plan; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
creating a set of profiles, wherein the set of profiles includes the activities, accessory, and service plan; comparing the set of profiles to a set of peer profiles; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles; and which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
transmitting an offer, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as mobile device, storage mechanism, processor, apparatus, storage medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the mobile device, storage mechanism, processor, apparatus, storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of generating a centralized data; recording activities; recording activities; receiving, from an application, a service plan; creating a set of profiles, wherein the set of profiles includes the activities, accessory, and service plan; comparing the set of profiles to a set of peer profiles; determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles; and transmitting an offer, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a mobile device, storage mechanism, processor, apparatus, storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of recording activities of a mobile device, comparing plans from different set of peer profiles and transmitting an offer to a mobile device based on comparison. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the mobile device, storage mechanism, processor, apparatus, storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of generating a centralized data; recording activities; recording activities; receiving, from an application, a service plan; creating a set of profiles, wherein the set of profiles includes the activities, accessory, and service plan; comparing the set of profiles to a set of peer profiles; determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles; and transmitting an offer, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of recording activities of a mobile device, comparing plans from different set of peer profiles and transmitting an offer to a mobile device based on comparison. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-7, and 9-14 further describe the abstract idea of recording activities of a mobile device, comparing plans from different set of peer profiles and transmitting an offer to a mobile device based on comparison. Claim(s) 2-4, 6-7, and 9-14 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a apparatus, mobile device to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of recording activities of a mobile device, comparing plans from different set of peer profiles and transmitting an offer to a mobile device based on comparison. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the apparatus, mobile device perform(s) the steps or functions of identifying by determining one of a first vendor identifier (VID) or a first product identifier (PID), determining one or more drivers that have a first driver VID or first driver PID associated with the first VID or first PID; and identifying by determining one of a second vendor identifier (VID) or a second product identifier (PID), determining one or more drivers that have a second driver VID or second driver PID associated with the second VID or second PID; wherein the activities comprise data indicating one or more of cell changes, roaming table updates, installation and activation of software applications, installation and activation of plug-in software, and phone calls; wherein transmitting an offer comprises transmitting a pop-up or email to a user with the offer; determining that the one or more new items meets at least one criteria associated with a filter of the user. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of recording activities of a mobile device, comparing plans from different set of peer profiles and transmitting an offer to a mobile device based on comparison. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claim 5, it provides an additional element that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to significant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See reference number US20160134997A1: (“the mobile phone is capable of conducting data interactions with such accessories as Bluetooth earphone via the server and the wearable intelligent device, while the wearable intelligent device is capable of conducting data interactions with a computer via the server and the mobile phone. For example, the user is still able to use a Bluetooth earphone”) (0073).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
A. Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160091871) in view of Baluja et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170103322) in view of Walsh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140153727).
As to Claim 1, Marti teaches a method comprising:generating a centralized storage mechanism for data of a mobile device; (0065: system 500 is implemented and can store the location information in location data store 508. For example, location determining subsystem 502 can incorporate a GPS receiver and can activate the GPS receiver from time to time to obtain a location fix (e.g., standard world coordinates representing the location of the device). The location fix, along with a time stamp indicating when the fix was obtained, can be stored in location data store 508),recording activities of the mobile device; (0079: Mobile device 610 can include a routine module 616 (e.g., implementing system 500 described above) that can determine an established user routine (including, e.g., pattern results 520). Mobile device 610 can also include a deviations module 618, which can analyze real-time data provided by location determining subsystem 502 and/or activity determining subsystem 504 and can compare the real-time location and/or activity data to pattern results 520 to determine whether the user's current location and/or activity is consistent or inconsistent with the established user routine. As used herein, a “deviation” can refer to any instance where the user's current location and/or activity is inconsistent with an established user routine. For instance, the established user routine can be used to predict a current location and/or activity, and this prediction can be compared with the real-time data.),recording an accessory that is associated with the activities; (0080: a user can interact with accessories 606, e.g., using mobile controller device 610. Routine module 616 can collect and store accessory interaction data, e.g., using activity determining subsystem 504 of FIG. 5; the accessory interaction data can be collected and stored in addition to or instead of other types of activity data. The accessory interaction data can include, e.g., which accessory 606 the user interacted with, what (if any) accessory operations the user invoked, information about where accessory 606 is located within automated environment 602, and time of the interaction.).
Marti does not teach receiving, from an application on the mobile device a service plan associated with the mobile device;
creating a set of profiles associated with the mobile device, wherein the set of profiles includes the activities and service plan;
comparing the set of profiles to a set of peer profiles that are associated with a different mobile device;
determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles.
However Baluja teaches receiving, from an application on the mobile device (0021: client device 105 may also include a social network application 110, such as a web browser or a dedicated program (e.g., an “app” for a mobile device)) a service plan associated with the mobile device; (0067: the system may retrieve subscription information for the target profile and subscription information for the profile of interest. The subscription information for the profiles may be stored in a database on one or more of the social network servers 120 of FIG. 1 or on another server.),creating a set of profiles associated with the mobile device, wherein the set of profiles includes the activities (0108: Subscription information may include a history or log of subscriber activity for a profile), and service plan; (0067: the system may retrieve subscription information for the target profile and subscription information for the profile of interest. The subscription information for the profiles may be stored in a database on one or more of the social network servers 120 of FIG. 1 or on another server.),comparing the set of profiles to a set of peer profiles that are associated with a different mobile device; (0104: the comparing of subscription rates for profiles and providing recommendations to users based on the comparisons ), (0042: Accordingly, of the 100 subscribers of profile A, the expected number of subscribers of profile B is 56. The system may compare the number of subscribers in the group that are also subscribed to profile B (40) with an expected number of subscribers for profile B (56) and determine that the actual number (40) does not exceed the expected number (56). Based on the comparison, the system may identify at least one target profile. For example, the subscribers of profile A seem less interested in subscribing to profile B than compared to the average interest of the population as a whole. Therefore, subscribers of profile B are bad targets to send recommendations to subscribe to profile A.), and (0043: In contrast, based on similar comparisons, subscribers of profile D and/or profile E are good targets to send recommendations to subscribe to profile A since their actual numbers exceed their expected numbers. More specifically, the expected number of subscribers of profile D for 100 members of the social network is 10 (10% of 100). However, for the 100 subscribers of profile A, there are 20 subscribers of profile D. We see that the actual number of subscribers of profile A that are also subscribers of profile D (20) exceeds the expected number of subscribers of profile D (10). Accordingly profile A is a good target to recommend to subscribers of profile D.),determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles; and (0104: the comparing of subscription rates for profiles and providing recommendations to users based on the comparisons ), (0042: Accordingly, of the 100 subscribers of profile A, the expected number of subscribers of profile B is 56. The system may compare the number of subscribers in the group that are also subscribed to profile B (40) with an expected number of subscribers for profile B (56) and determine that the actual number (40) does not exceed the expected number (56). Based on the comparison, the system may identify at least one target profile. For example, the subscribers of profile A seem less interested in subscribing to profile B than compared to the average interest of the population as a whole. Therefore, subscribers of profile B are bad targets to send recommendations to subscribe to profile A.), and (0043: In contrast, based on similar comparisons, subscribers of profile D and/or profile E are good targets to send recommendations to subscribe to profile A since their actual numbers exceed their expected numbers. More specifically, the expected number of subscribers of profile D for 100 members of the social network is 10 (10% of 100). However, for the 100 subscribers of profile A, there are 20 subscribers of profile D. We see that the actual number of subscribers of profile A that are also subscribers of profile D (20) exceeds the expected number of subscribers of profile D (10). Accordingly profile A is a good target to recommend to subscribers of profile D.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marti to include determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles of Baluja. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles would provide plans that are not subscribed by all profiles which would encourage other profiles to subscribe with more plans and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
Marti does not teaches creating a set of profiles associated with the mobile device, wherein the set of profiles includes the accessory;
transmitting an offer to the mobile device, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different.
However Walsh teaches creating a set of profiles associated with the mobile device, wherein the set of profiles includes the accessory (0078: The accessory device 420 may be headphones, headset, integrated speakers, standalone speakers, or any other device capable of reproducing audio. The playback device 410 may identify the accessory device 420 through user input, or automatically by detecting the make/model of the accessory device 420. The user input of the accessory device 420 may include a user selection of the specific make/model of the accessory device 420, or a user selection of a general category of accessory device, such as in-ear headphone, over-ear headphone, earbuds, on-ear headphone, built-in speakers, or external speakers… the server 430 may generate an accessory device profile 470 for the particular accessory device 420.), transmitting an offer to the mobile device, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different; (0086: profiles may be stored by the virtualization system in case they are needed in the future. Even if the playback device is no longer used or an accessory device is disconnected from the playback device, the profiles may be stored by any component of the virtualization system. In some embodiments, the virtualization system may also track the number of times the user uses a playback device or an accessory device. This may allow the virtualization system to provide a customized recommendation to the user based on prior playback device and accessory device usage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marti to include determining one or more transmitting an offer to the mobile device, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different of Walsh. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that transmitting an offer to the mobile device, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different would provide plans that are not subscribed by all profiles which would encourage other profiles to subscribe with more plans and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
As to Claim 4, Marti, Baluja, and Walsh teach the method of claim 1.
Walsh further teaches wherein transmitting an offer to the mobile device comprises transmitting a pop-up or email to a user with the offer; (0022: recommendations or suggestions may be provided to the user as a pop up notification on a display device for the user, provided in a message sent to the user's email account or other messaging account, or provided in some other form.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to to include determining one or more wherein transmitting an offer to the mobile device comprises transmitting a pop-up or email to a user with the offer. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that wherein transmitting an offer to the mobile device comprises transmitting a pop-up or email to a user with the offer would provide offers that would be an interest to the user which would encourage other profiles to subscribe with more plans and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
As to Claim 5, Marti, Baluja, and Walsh teach the method of claim 1.
Marti further teaches wherein the accessory comprises one of a Bluetooth accessory or a headset; (0022: For example, some wireless transports such as Bluetooth® transports (e.g., Bluetooth Classic, Bluetooth LE, and other transports conforming to standards promulgated by Bluetooth SIG, Inc., headquartered in Kirkland, Wash.).
As to Claim 4, Marti, Baluja, and Walsh teach the method of claim 1.
Walsh further teaches wherein the different mobile device comprises a plurality of mobile devices associated with different users; (0018: The network environment includes one or more client devices 105), and (Fig. 1: 105 client devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the different mobile device comprises a plurality of mobile devices associated with different users. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that wherein the different mobile device comprises a plurality of mobile devices associated with different users would provide an offer to plurality of users and that would be an interest to the user which would encourage other profiles to subscribe with more plans and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
As to Claim 8, Marti teaches an apparatus comprising:a processor; and (0045: microprocessors),a storage medium for tangibly storing thereon program logic for execution by the processor, the stored program logic comprising: (0043: memory),generating a centralized storage mechanism for data of a mobile device; (0065: system 500 is implemented and can store the location information in location data store 508. For example, location determining subsystem 502 can incorporate a GPS receiver and can activate the GPS receiver from time to time to obtain a location fix (e.g., standard world coordinates representing the location of the device). The location fix, along with a time stamp indicating when the fix was obtained, can be stored in location data store 508),recording activities of the mobile device; (0079: Mobile device 610 can include a routine module 616 (e.g., implementing system 500 described above) that can determine an established user routine (including, e.g., pattern results 520). Mobile device 610 can also include a deviations module 618, which can analyze real-time data provided by location determining subsystem 502 and/or activity determining subsystem 504 and can compare the real-time location and/or activity data to pattern results 520 to determine whether the user's current location and/or activity is consistent or inconsistent with the established user routine. As used herein, a “deviation” can refer to any instance where the user's current location and/or activity is inconsistent with an established user routine. For instance, the established user routine can be used to predict a current location and/or activity, and this prediction can be compared with the real-time data.), recording an accessory that is associated with the activities; (0080: a user can interact with accessories 606, e.g., using mobile controller device 610. Routine module 616 can collect and store accessory interaction data, e.g., using activity determining subsystem 504 of FIG. 5; the accessory interaction data can be collected and stored in addition to or instead of other types of activity data. The accessory interaction data can include, e.g., which accessory 606 the user interacted with, what (if any) accessory operations the user invoked, information about where accessory 606 is located within automated environment 602, and time of the interaction.).
Marti does not teach receiving, from an application on the mobile device a service plan associated with the mobile device;
creating a set of profiles associated with the mobile device, wherein the set of profiles includes the activities and service plan;
comparing the set of profiles to a set of peer profiles that are associated with a different mobile device;
determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles.
However Baluja teaches receiving, from an application on the mobile device (0021: client device 105 may also include a social network application 110, such as a web browser or a dedicated program (e.g., an “app” for a mobile device)) a service plan associated with the mobile device; (0067: the system may retrieve subscription information for the target profile and subscription information for the profile of interest. The subscription information for the profiles may be stored in a database on one or more of the social network servers 120 of FIG. 1 or on another server.),creating a set of profiles associated with the mobile device, wherein the set of profiles includes the activities (0108: Subscription information may include a history or log of subscriber activity for a profile), and service plan; (0067: the system may retrieve subscription information for the target profile and subscription information for the profile of interest. The subscription information for the profiles may be stored in a database on one or more of the social network servers 120 of FIG. 1 or on another server.),comparing the set of profiles to a set of peer profiles that are associated with a different mobile device; (0104: the comparing of subscription rates for profiles and providing recommendations to users based on the comparisons ), (0042: Accordingly, of the 100 subscribers of profile A, the expected number of subscribers of profile B is 56. The system may compare the number of subscribers in the group that are also subscribed to profile B (40) with an expected number of subscribers for profile B (56) and determine that the actual number (40) does not exceed the expected number (56). Based on the comparison, the system may identify at least one target profile. For example, the subscribers of profile A seem less interested in subscribing to profile B than compared to the average interest of the population as a whole. Therefore, subscribers of profile B are bad targets to send recommendations to subscribe to profile A.), and (0043: In contrast, based on similar comparisons, subscribers of profile D and/or profile E are good targets to send recommendations to subscribe to profile A since their actual numbers exceed their expected numbers. More specifically, the expected number of subscribers of profile D for 100 members of the social network is 10 (10% of 100). However, for the 100 subscribers of profile A, there are 20 subscribers of profile D. We see that the actual number of subscribers of profile A that are also subscribers of profile D (20) exceeds the expected number of subscribers of profile D (10). Accordingly profile A is a good target to recommend to subscribers of profile D.),determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles; and (0104: the comparing of subscription rates for profiles and providing recommendations to users based on the comparisons ), (0042: Accordingly, of the 100 subscribers of profile A, the expected number of subscribers of profile B is 56. The system may compare the number of subscribers in the group that are also subscribed to profile B (40) with an expected number of subscribers for profile B (56) and determine that the actual number (40) does not exceed the expected number (56). Based on the comparison, the system may identify at least one target profile. For example, the subscribers of profile A seem less interested in subscribing to profile B than compared to the average interest of the population as a whole. Therefore, subscribers of profile B are bad targets to send recommendations to subscribe to profile A.), and (0043: In contrast, based on similar comparisons, subscribers of profile D and/or profile E are good targets to send recommendations to subscribe to profile A since their actual numbers exceed their expected numbers. More specifically, the expected number of subscribers of profile D for 100 members of the social network is 10 (10% of 100). However, for the 100 subscribers of profile A, there are 20 subscribers of profile D. We see that the actual number of subscribers of profile A that are also subscribers of profile D (20) exceeds the expected number of subscribers of profile D (10). Accordingly profile A is a good target to recommend to subscribers of profile D.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marti to include determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles of Baluja. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles would provide plans that are not subscribed by all profiles which would encourage other profiles to subscribe with more plans and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
Marti does not teaches creating a set of profiles associated with the mobile device, wherein the set of profiles includes the accessory;
transmitting an offer to the mobile device, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different.
However Walsh teaches creating a set of profiles associated with the mobile device, wherein the set of profiles includes the accessory (0078: The accessory device 420 may be headphones, headset, integrated speakers, standalone speakers, or any other device capable of reproducing audio. The playback device 410 may identify the accessory device 420 through user input, or automatically by detecting the make/model of the accessory device 420. The user input of the accessory device 420 may include a user selection of the specific make/model of the accessory device 420, or a user selection of a general category of accessory device, such as in-ear headphone, over-ear headphone, earbuds, on-ear headphone, built-in speakers, or external speakers… the server 430 may generate an accessory device profile 470 for the particular accessory device 420.), transmitting an offer to the mobile device, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different; (0086: profiles may be stored by the virtualization system in case they are needed in the future. Even if the playback device is no longer used or an accessory device is disconnected from the playback device, the profiles may be stored by any component of the virtualization system. In some embodiments, the virtualization system may also track the number of times the user uses a playback device or an accessory device. This may allow the virtualization system to provide a customized recommendation to the user based on prior playback device and accessory device usage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marti to include determining one or more transmitting an offer to the mobile device, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different of Walsh. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that transmitting an offer to the mobile device, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different would provide plans that are not subscribed by all profiles which would encourage other profiles to subscribe with more plans and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
As to Claim 11, Marti, Baluja, and Walsh teach the apparatus of claim 8.
Walsh further teaches wherein the logic for transmitting an offer to the mobile device comprises transmitting a pop-up or email to a user with the offer; (0022: recommendations or suggestions may be provided to the user as a pop up notification on a display device for the user, provided in a message sent to the user's email account or other messaging account, or provided in some other form.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to to include determining one or more wherein the logic for transmitting an offer to the mobile device comprises transmitting a pop-up or email to a user with the offer. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that wherein the logic for transmitting an offer to the mobile device comprises transmitting a pop-up or email to a user with the offer would provide offers that would be an interest to the user which would encourage other profiles to subscribe with more plans and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
As to Claim 12, Marti, Baluja, and Walsh teach the apparatus of claim 8.
Marti further teaches wherein the accessory comprises one of a Bluetooth accessory or a headset; (0022: For example, some wireless transports such as Bluetooth® transports (e.g., Bluetooth Classic, Bluetooth LE, and other transports conforming to standards promulgated by Bluetooth SIG, Inc., headquartered in Kirkland, Wash.).
As to Claim 13, Marti, Baluja, and Walsh teach the apparatus of claim 8.
Walsh further teaches wherein the different mobile device comprises a plurality of mobile devices associated with different users; (0018: The network environment includes one or more client devices 105), and (Fig. 1: 105 client devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the different mobile device comprises a plurality of mobile devices associated with different users. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that wherein the different mobile device comprises a plurality of mobile devices associated with different users would provide an offer to plurality of users and that would be an interest to the user which would encourage other profiles to subscribe with more plans and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
B. Claim(s) 2, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160091871) in view of Baluja et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170103322) in view of Walsh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140153727) in view of Ratnakar, (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120190350).
As per claims 2 and 9, Poon specifically doesn’t discloses, identifying the mobile device by determining one of a first vendor identifier (VID) or a first product identifier (PID), determining one or more drivers that have a first driver VID or first driver PID associated with the first VID or first PID; and identifying the different mobile device by determining one of a second vendor identifier (VID) or a second product identifier (PID), determining one or more drivers that have a second driver VID or second driver PID associated with the second VID or second PID, however Ratnakar discloses, identifying the mobile device by determining one of a first vendor identifier (VID) or a first product identifier (PID), determining one or more drivers that have a first driver VID or first driver PID associated with the first VID or first PID; and identifying the different mobile device by determining one of a second vendor identifier (VID) or a second product identifier (PID), determining one or more drivers that have a second driver VID or second driver PID associated with the second VID or second PID (“The server application communicates one or more vendor messages to the mobile device. Mobile user has an option to accept or reject the vendor message. When mobile user accepts a vendor message; the mobile device ID (and preferably the vendor message ID) is communicated to the server application. The server application then logs the accepted vendor message ID and the corresponding vendor ID into the mobile user account in the application server; and server application also logs the mobile device ID and vendor message ID into corresponding vendor's account”) (0046).
C. Claim(s) 3, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160091871) in view of Baluja et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170103322) in view of Walsh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140153727) in view of Elkarat et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20040192306).
As to Claim 3, Marti, Baluja, and Walsh teach the method of claim 1.
Marti, Baluja, and Walsh do not teach wherein the activities of the mobile device comprise data indicating one or more of cell changes, roaming table updates, installation and activation of software applications, installation and activation of plug-in software, and phone calls.
However Elkarat teaches wherein the activities of the mobile device comprise data indicating one or more of cell changes, roaming table updates, installation and activation of software applications, installation and activation of plug-in software, and phone calls; (0059: connection control signaling comprises data regarding roaming activity of said mobile unit in any one of a plurality of roaming environments, each roaming environment comprising a plurality of available roaming networks to which said mobile unit is able to make a roaming connection, and wherein said update information comprises updated preference data ranking said available roaming networks in an order of selection preference.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the activities of the mobile device comprise data indicating one or more of cell changes, roaming table updates, installation and activation of software applications, installation and activation of plug-in software, and phone calls. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that wherein the activities of the mobile device comprise data indicating one or more of cell changes, roaming table updates, installation and activation of software applications, installation and activation of plug-in software, and phone calls would provide more data that would help in better determination of what offer provide to the users and that would be an interest to the user which would encourage other profiles to subscribe with more plans and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
As to Claim 10, Marti, Baluja, and Walsh teach the apparatus of claim 8.
Marti, Baluja, and Walsh do not teach wherein the activities of the mobile device comprise data indicating one or more of cell changes, roaming table updates, installation and activation of software applications, installation and activation of plug-in software, and phone calls.
However Elkarat teaches wherein the activities of the mobile device comprise data indicating one or more of cell changes, roaming table updates, installation and activation of software applications, installation and activation of plug-in software, and phone calls; (0059: connection control signaling comprises data regarding roaming activity of said mobile unit in any one of a plurality of roaming environments, each roaming environment comprising a plurality of available roaming networks to which said mobile unit is able to make a roaming connection, and wherein said update information comprises updated preference data ranking said available roaming networks in an order of selection preference.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the activities of the mobile device comprise data indicating one or more of cell changes, roaming table updates, installation and activation of software applications, installation and activation of plug-in software, and phone calls. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that wherein the activities of the mobile device comprise data indicating one or more of cell changes, roaming table updates, installation and activation of software applications, installation and activation of plug-in software, and phone calls would provide more data that would help in better determination of what offer provide to the users and that would be an interest to the user which would encourage other profiles to subscribe with more plans and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
D. Claim(s) 7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160091871) in view of Baluja et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170103322) in view of Walsh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140153727) in view of Poon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20040192306).
As to Claim 7, Marti, Baluja, and Walsh teach the method of claim 1.
Marti, Baluja, and Walsh do not teach determining that the one or more new items meets at least one criteria associated with a filter of the user.
However Poon teaches determining that the one or more new items meets at least one criteria associated with a filter of the user; (“the subscriber session is redirected to a portal with specific offers. The subscriber can select a top-up offer and be allowed to continue passing traffic at the original Quality of Service (QoS). The subscriber can also pay for a higher speed (e.g., "throttle up") if the subscriber is accessing a selected service (e.g., an online video) or wants more bandwidth to download a specified song or other type of file”) (0119, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining that the one or more new items meets at least one criteria associated with a filter of the user. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that determining that the one or more new items meets at least one criteria associated with a filter of the user would provide an item that the user would be an interest to the user which would encourage other profiles to subscribe with more plans and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
As to Claim 14, Marti, Baluja, and Walsh teach the apparatus of claim 8.
Marti, Baluja, and Walsh do not teach wherein the stored program logic further comprises determining that the one or more new items meets at least one criteria associated with a filter of the user.
However Poon teaches wherein the stored program logic further comprises determining that the one or more new items meets at least one criteria associated with a filter of the user; (“the subscriber session is redirected to a portal with specific offers. The subscriber can select a top-up offer and be allowed to continue passing traffic at the original Quality of Service (QoS). The subscriber can also pay for a higher speed (e.g., "throttle up") if the subscriber is accessing a selected service (e.g., an online video) or wants more bandwidth to download a specified song or other type of file”) (0119, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the stored program logic further comprises determining that the one or more new items meets at least one criteria associated with a filter of the user. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that wherein the stored program logic further comprises determining that the one or more new items meets at least one criteria associated with a filter of the user would provide an item that the user would be an interest to the user which would encourage other profiles to subscribe with more plans and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
NPL Reference
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL “Track daily activity with Apple Watch” describes “The Activity app on your Apple Watch helps you keep track of your movement throughout the day and encourages you to meet your fitness goals. The app tracks how often you stand, how much you move, and how many minutes of exercise you do. Three rings in different colors summarize your progress. The goal is to sit less, move more, and get some exercise by completing each ring every day. The Fitness app on your iPhone keeps a record of your activity. If you’ve tracked at least 6 months of activity, it displays daily trend data for active calories, exercise minutes, stand hours, stand minutes, walk distance, cardio fitness, walking pace, and more. In the Fitness app on iPhone, tap Summary, then scroll to Trends to see how you’re doing compared with your average activity. Siri: On supported models, ask Siri something like, “How are my Activity Rings?” (Not available in all languages or regions.) See Keep track of your health and fitness with Siri. Note: Your Apple Watch is not a medical device. For important information about using the wellness apps safely, see Important safety information for Apple Watch.”.
Pertinent Art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference#8984296 teaches similar invention which describes accessing, from the device driver and responsive to a peripheral device being coupled to the computer system, predetermined authentication information stored in the device driver, wherein the predetermined authentication information comprises an authentication policy defined by a driver developer source and a signature provided by the driver developer source, said device driver validated and signed by each of the driver developer source and an operating system validator; decrypting the signature to obtain a first message digest value, the first message digest value generated by the driver developer source using a first vendor identifier and a first product identifier provided by a vendor and a first device driver parameter provided by the driver developer source, the first device driver parameter including at least one of a first driver code image, a first driver path name, and a first driver filename; generating, by the device driver, a second message digest value according to said authentication policy using a second vendor identifier, a second product identifier received from the peripheral device coupled to the computer system, and a second device driver parameter including at least one of a second driver code image, a second driver path name, and a second driver filename; comparing said first and second message digest values; and loading said device driver in response to a match of said first and second message digest values, and otherwise terminating execution of said device driver, wherein the match ensures that the first vendor identifier and first product identifier provided by the vendor and the first device driver parameter provided by the driver developer source are the same as the second vendor identifier, the second product identifier, and the second device driver parameter received from the peripheral device.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Double patenting rejection will not be withdrawn because claims are still not distinct from those of the 11,132,732.
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of recording activities of a mobile device, comparing plans from different set of peer profiles and transmitting an offer to a mobile device based on comparison which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)), (MPEP § 2106.04).
As to t he Enfish arguments, the instant claimed invention and Enfish have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Applicant alludes to the claimed invention being analogous to Enfish LLC. v. Microsoft Corp. in which a whole new database structure was created that did not function as previous databases. But in contrast to Enfish LLC. v. Microsoft Corp.
Applicant's claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality but rather to generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, in Enfish, the Courts found that no abstract idea was present, that the claims were directed to a self-referential table for a computer database, and that the claims were directed to an improvement of an existing technology. The Courts further emphasized that the specification taught specific technical benefits over conventional databases.
Contrary to Enfish, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to recording activities of a mobile device, comparing plans from different set of peer profiles and transmitting an offer to a mobile device based on comparison does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “mobile device, storage mechanism, processor, apparatus, storage medium” perform(s) the steps or functions of generating a centralized data; recording activities; recording activities; receiving, from an application, a service plan; creating a set of profiles, wherein the set of profiles includes the activities, accessory, and service plan; comparing the set of profiles to a set of peer profiles; determining one or more activities, accessory, or service plan is different in the set of peer profiles as compared with the set of profiles; and transmitting an offer, the offer including the one or more activities, accessory, or service plan that is different. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to recording activities of a mobile device, comparing plans from different set of peer profiles and transmitting an offer to a mobile device based on comparison does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “mobile device, storage mechanism, processor, apparatus, storage medium” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of recording activities of a mobile device, comparing plans from different set of peer profiles and transmitting an offer to a mobile device based on comparison. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAREK ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (571) 272-9638. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex Mon - Thur 7-7:00 and Fri 7-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621B