DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filing on 07/03/2025. Claims 1-11 are pending; claims 6 7 are withdrawn; and, claims 1-5 and 8-11 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 11/27/2019.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Claims 1-5 8-11 are machine claims. Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, prong 1 – Exemplary claim 1 recites the abstract idea of,
acquires (i) video information at a first site including location information at the first site, (ii) identification information identifying the first site, and (iii) procedure information regarding the procedure at the first site based on request information regarding photographing at the first site which is input via a second terminal at a second site (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) Another example of a claim reciting social activities is Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue was the social activity of “’providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity.’” 896 F.3d at 1344, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp.3d 1184, 1188 (W.D. 2014)). The patentee claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The Federal Circuit concluded that “[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,” observing that the district court “pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.” 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559.; see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); for the remote request aspect of the claim, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) v. local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017));
delivers/transmit/communicate the video information to the second terminal at the second site in real time (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) - vi. using a marking affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object, i.e., the sender, recipient, and contents of the mail object, Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 911, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1506 (Fed. Cir. 2017); MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) citing IV I v. Capital Bank, communicating a notification as it occurs; see also Step 2B, WURC analysis for transmitting data);
transmit the situation information acquired by the processor to the first terminal or the second terminal (communicating information is abstract idea shown in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) citing IV I v. Capital Bank; see also Step 2B WURC analysis)
responsive to instruction information which is input via the second terminal, acquire (acquiring/collecting information – See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Elec. Power Group), by the processor, the procedure information based on instruction information regarding the photographing at the first site when the video information transmitted by the processor includes the procedure information (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) - Another example of a claim reciting social activities is Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue was the social activity of “’providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity.’” 896 F.3d at 1344, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp.3d 1184, 1188 (W.D. 2014)). The patentee claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The Federal Circuit concluded that “[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,” observing that the district court “pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.” 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559.);
display (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Elec. Power Group, collect analyze display found to be abstract idea) the procedure information in a state where the procedure at the first site is allowed to be shared on the second terminal based on the location information, the identification information, and a display restriction at the second site or in the second terminal related to the procedure information (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) - Another example of a claim reciting social activities is Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue was the social activity of “’providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity.’” 896 F.3d at 1344, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp.3d 1184, 1188 (W.D. 2014)). The patentee claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The Federal Circuit concluded that “[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,” observing that the district court “pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.” 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559.).
display by the processor the state information at the first site only on the first terminal (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Elec. Power Group, collect analyze display found to be abstract idea)
Accordingly, when viewed alone and in combination (as a whole), the above limitations are found to recite abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Claim 1 does not integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a processor to acquire various data, transmit data to a first/second terminal, input via selection on interface and acquire said input by processor, display by processor, display data on the first terminal. The processor is claimed in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f) “whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).” The examiner finds that the processor is claimed an “apply it” manner, and is being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea concepts associated therewith. For the first and second terminal that receive and transmit data, this is also recited in an “apply it” manner, and thereby used as tools to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the input from the first/second device, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because “an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality,” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The examiner finds that the additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and act as tools to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, the examiner finds that claim 1 is directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B – Claim 1 is not found to recite inventive concept. The additional limitations analysis from Step 2A, Prong 2 is equally applied to Step 2B. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1 recites several limitations relating to receiving and/or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
For the limitations to relating to electronic recordkeeping, storing/retrieving data, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, claim 1 is found to be directed to abstract idea.
Dependent claims – Claim 2 recites a third terminal and another means/unit limitation as additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality and act as tools to “apply” the abstract idea. Claim 3 recites where the video acquiring means displays more data, where this is not an improvement to the underlying technology. Claim 4 recites where the acquiring means acquires more information. Claim 5 recites where the displaying means displays more data and this is more “apply it” with a computer rationale. Claim 8 recites more abstract idea relating to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B), and more WURC relating to transmitting data under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Claim 9 recites more abstract idea further denoting data. Claim 10 does not appear to recite an improvement to computer functionality. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). Claim 11 is more abstract idea of displaying analyzed data, see Elec Power Group.
Accordingly, claims 1-5, 8-11 are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0105354 to Malhotra et al. (“Malhotra”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0052824 to Fall (“Fall”).
With regard to claim 1, Malhotra discloses the claimed procedure sharing system in which terminals at a plurality of sites are communicatively connected over a network to share procedures between the respective sites, the procedure sharing system comprising:
a processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (see e.g. [0013] [0020-21] [0137] Processing device 802 represents one or more general-purpose processors such as a microprocessor, central processing unit, or the like. More particularly, the processing device 802 may be a complex instruction set computing (CISC) microprocessor, reduced instruction set computing (RISC) microprocessor, very long instruction word (VLIW) microprocessor, processor implementing other instruction sets, or processors implementing a combination of instruction sets. Processing device 802 may also be one or more special-purpose processing devices such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), network processor, or the like. Processing device 802 is configured to execute the processing logic (instructions 826) for performing operations and steps discussed herein.):
configured to acquire: (i) video information at a first site including location information at the first site; (ii) identification information identifying the first site, and (iii) responsive to request information which is input via a second terminal at a second site, acquire by the processor procedure information (see e.g. [0036], [0037], [0040], [0082] etc. Malhotra repeatedly discusses merchants, merchant physical stores, POS systems, and payment acceptance systems, and the OPS provides a “secure remote universal interface between any type of payment or money transfer system and any payment acceptance system.” It necessarily uses identifiers for merchants, stores, and payment endpoints to route transactions (“physical store of a merchant”, “existing POS system of a merchant”; Malhotra’s OPS is designed for remote-virtual-to-physical transactions, where a remote shopper (second site) interacts via social / mobile channels (phone, text, chat, photo share, video share, voice share, etc.) with a merchant at a physical store. The OPS receives remote user requests and sends back information and payment codes, enabling the merchant staff (first site) to fulfill orders (e.g. a procedure at first site); this maps to “request information” from a second terminal triggering acquisition of information about actions/procedures to be performed at the physical store/first site.)) (iv) acquire by the processor situation information relating to a location where the video information or the procedure information shared by a first terminal at the first site was obtained (see e.g. [0081] live stream of item and accompanying product information provided to the user, where the accompanying product information can be barcode, status as for sale, price, and the like, [0082]; see e.g. Fig. 2B where the situation information could be that a person is holding up the outfit, there are lights on in the facility, how the clothes are held in relation to the lights, etc.); and (v) acquire by the processor state information relating to a state of audio or image contained in the video information (see e.g. [0099] where the state of the image is for sale when the “Bag” button is included in the webpage; Fig. 2C indicates that the status of the item is for sale, and the price with state information of tax is shown; Fig. 2E state information indicates that transaction is complete.)
regarding the procedure at the first site based on request information regarding photographing at the first site which is input via a second terminal at a second site (see e.g. [0012] In some embodiments, aspects of the present disclosure are directed to the secure remote payment extension of methods and systems for providing a universal, global, virtual-to-physical payment adapter where the foreign visitor can engage in a transaction with the domestic merchant over phone, text, direct message, email, chat, chatbot, photo share, video share, voice share, and social media platform henceforth known as a variety of communications methods; [0013] aspects of the present disclosure provide the logical and physical infrastructure to provide relevant and personalized information via a social media marketplace platform with a mechanism to provide direct communication between shopper and merchant to transact remotely at the physical store and share that experience with others. [0053] video stream-based purchasing experience; [0081] In various implementations, the communication session can include a live video stream of the products at the physical store, with the accompanying product information provided to the user. In such instances, the live stream can be forwarded to the user device 4, and the communication session can facilitate live communication between the merchant where the merchant can provide a sales “pitch” to the user, and subsequently receive a purchase request [i.e. input via a second terminal at second site] responsive to the live stream, where the purchase request is displayed within the display page as the stream.; the examiner has interpreted the first site to be the retailer store/location, and the second site is the location of the user is on the user/second terminal.);
transmit by the processor the video information acquired by the processor to the second terminal at the second site in real time (see e.g. [0081] In various implementations, the communication session can include a live video stream of the products at the physical store, with the accompanying product information provided to the user. In such instances, the live stream can be forwarded to the user device 4, and the communication session can facilitate live communication between the merchant where the merchant can provide a sales “pitch” to the user, and subsequently receive a purchase request responsive to the live stream, where the purchase request is displayed within the display page as the stream; [0074] conduit for real-time communications);
transmit by the processor the situation information acquired by the processor to the first terminal or the second terminal (see Fig. 2B, where the real-time situation information such as person holding up outfit, lighting at facility, angle of clothes to light, and the light, are communicated to the second terminal);
responsive to instruction information which is input via the second terminal, acquire, by the processor, the procedure information based on instruction information which regards the photographing of the procedure information when the video information transmitted by the processor includes the procedure information (see e.g. [0081] subsequently receive a purchase request responsive to the live stream, where the purchase request is displayed within the display page as the stream. In various implementations, the merchant can establish the connection with more than a single user device 4 to showcase products to more than one potential customer concurrently, or at approximately the same time; see chat function of Fig. 2B-2E; user at remote location makes request, the video is presented as shown in Fig. 2B-2E, showing the procedure); and
display by the processor the procedure information acquired by the procedure information acquisition unit in a state where the procedure at the first site is allowed to be shared on the second terminal based on the location information, the identification information, and a display restriction at the second site or in the second terminal related to the procedure information (see e.g. Fig. 2A-E);
Malhotra, however, does not explicitly disclose: 1) define an access-control rule that determines whether a procedure at the first site is allowed to be shared on the second terminal based on combined location, site identification, display restrictions, nor 2) specify that state information is displayed only on the first terminal while being hidden from the second.
Fall (Titled, CONVEYING STATE INFORMATION FOR STREAMING MEDIA) teaches e.g. abstract, [0015] [0027-28] [0049] [0052-54] [0060-63] [0067-69] that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the media presentation art to include such “state information”, and control access to the media based on the state information, as claimed,
See Fall:
Abstract - Systems, methods, and devices for transmitting a media stream are described herein. In some aspects, a device includes a state manager configured to generate state information for a portion of the media stream for a client requesting the media stream. The device further includes a transmitter configured to transmit information identifying the media stream to the client, the information identifying the media stream including the generated state information. The device also includes a receiver configured to receive the state information from the client. The device includes a content generator configured to generate an output media stream based at least in part on the received state information.
[0015] In one or more of the above innovative aspects, the state information may indicate one or more of media streamed to the client, media to be streamed to the client, demographic information for a user of the client, technical capabilities of the client, or authorization for the client. The state information may be generated based on one or more of the portion of the media stream and the client requesting the media stream. The state information may include at least one of a pseudo-random value and a unique pseudo-random value. In some implementations, the state information may be stored, such as in a memory. The state information may be included in a query string for the portion of the media stream.
[0027] - Fall is about controlling streaming media based on state information: it generates state information for media, transmits it, then uses returned state to generate an output stream that can include additional content elements.
[0028] As the state information is included in the segment identifier, the details of maintaining state are encapsulated. Cookies, files, and other persistence mechanisms may not be needed to achieve indication of state information. This may improve processing speeds on behalf of the client and the server as well as provide a flexible way to maintain state across platforms and devices.
[0049] where the state information is only presented to the first user, not the second user as the state information is generated and sent from the second user interactions on the second device
[0052-54], [0060-63] etc. Fall teaches generating state information for a portion of a media stream, where the state information may indicate media streamed to the client, media to be streamed, technical capabilities, authorization, etc., and this information may be used to look up previously streamed media or to control subsequent streaming and associated content.
Fall explicitly discloses transmitting information that identifies the media stream, including generated state information, and then receiving state information from the client and generating an output media stream based on that state. Fall describes a process where state information for a media portion is used to look up or determine which media (or additional content elements) to stream next, based on what has already been streamed or the user’s context.
[0067] [0069] Fall explicitly teaches that state information can be kept server-side and/or transmitted selectively, and that it may encode what content has been streamed, what is authorized for a client, and what the client is allowed to access (e.g., content ratings, amount of content, etc.). The client “need not maintain or transmit” certain state; the state manager on the server can control content based on that state.
Given Malhotra already contemplates video/voice/media communications in a client/server environment and rich contextual modeling, and Fall teaches well-known techniques for media-state tracking and authorization-based control, it would have been well within ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate Fall’s state-information mechanisms into Malhotra’s system to (i) associate location/situation metadata with media captured at a first site, (ii) track the state of audio/video streams, and (iii) control display of procedure and state information across first and second terminals, producing the full set of limitations of claim 1 with predictable results. For further motivation, see advantages of such combination at Fall e.g. [0008] If a server and client are not properly synchronized, the media presentation may be displayed out of order, missing portions, or repeated. Each of these may require additional signaling and processing to correct and/or avoid which, in some circumstances, introduces additional bandwidth, processing, and power demands on the network and devices. Accordingly, there is a need to provide systems and methods for generating and transmitting state information for streaming media. Fall at [0009] After considering this discussion, and particularly after reading the section entitled "Detailed Description" one will understand how the features of this invention provide advantages that include generating and transmitting state information for streaming media segments. Fall [0028] As the state information is included in the segment identifier, the details of maintaining state are encapsulated. Cookies, files, and other persistence mechanisms may not be needed to achieve indication of state information. This may improve processing speeds on behalf of the client and the server as well as provide a flexible way to maintain state across platforms and devices. Fall [0054] this allows the server 212 to serve more DASH clients 208 in a more efficient manner. Fall [0006].
With regard to claim 2, Malhotra further discloses: a third terminal at the second site; and procedure information performing means that acquires the procedure information displayed by the procedure information displaying means via the third terminal, discriminates a procedure performable by the third terminal at the second site based on the acquired procedure information, and performs the procedure information via the third terminal by the discriminated procedure (see Fig. 8, where the computing device of the user includes many terminals connected together using the bus; [0137] Processing device 802 may also be one or more special-purpose processing devices such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), network processor, or the like. Processing device 802 is configured to execute the processing logic (instructions 826) for performing operations and steps discussed herein.; published claim 9).
With regard to claim 3, Malhotra further discloses where the procedure information acquired by the video information acquiring means is displayed by non-disclosure, disclosure, or alternative display in the first terminal or the second terminal, and the procedure information includes at least any information of object information identifying an object at the first site, procedure person information identifying a procedure person who performs the procedure, procedure location information identifying a procedure place, a procedure period information regarding a valid period of the procedure, and payment information regarding a payment for the procedure (see e.g. Fig. 2A-2E).
With regard to claim 4, Malhotra further discloses where when the procedure information acquiring means acquires the procedure information included in the video information via the first terminal, the procedure information acquiring means acquires the procedure information as a still image such that the procedure information is not deployed in the first terminal or the second terminal (see e.g. [0012] [0007] payment not completed; [0039-40] payment not completed within certain time frame).
With regard to claim 5, Malhotra further discloses where the procedure information displaying means allows displaying the procedure information delivered by the video information delivering means by non-disclosure, disclosure, or alternative display in the first terminal or the second terminal, and when a plurality of pieces of the procedure information are present, the plurality of pieces of procedure information are displayed in a state where the procedure is allowed to be shared on the second terminal as the procedure information at the first site based on at least any information of the object information, the procedure person information, the procedure location information, the procedure period information, and the payment information included in the procedure information (see e.g. Fig. 3D-3F).
With regard to claim 9, see Malhotra at [0012] voice share, [0026], etc.
With regard to claim 10-11, see Malhotra at e.g. [0019] [0030] [0106] automatic currency conversion/correct and edit on the procedure information as display destination. See e.g. MPEP 2144.04(III) The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner has withdrawn the 112(f) claim interpretations based on the amendments/arguments provided.
The examiner maintains the 101 rejections. The rejection has been modified above in accordance with the amendments and arguments.
As for the arguments against Malhotra, the examiner has turned the 102 into a 103 and added a new reference Fall to cover the deficiencies of Malhotra. The examiner refers to the rejection above to address the amendments/arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627