DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to applicant amendment/remarks filed 03/02/2026. Claims 1, 3, and 11-17 have been amended. Claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, and 5-17 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2026 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection with regards to the limitation “coupon service interface” and “coupon management interface” being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive, because this limitation has been removed from the claims. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-11 filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is partly persuasive. The applicant has heavily amended the claims, and therefore a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection with regards to Kim US20190180485A1, Trika US20050131761A1, Dixit US10,573,057B1, Zamer US20150193803A1, and Hussain US20150310489A1 is provided below.
The applicant discloses that Kim discloses displaying to the vicinity of the destination a graphic object including information such as a name of the destination, a remaining distance to the destination, or an advertisement associated with the destination relating to the destination, and that Kim does not include the specific configurations involving downloading coupon and transmitting the information of the downloaded coupon to the system when it is determined that the vehicle is a certain threshold distance away from the display area of the AR coupon. However, the claims do not recite this. The claims recite “transmitting to the system, a request for coupon information” and “transmitting, to the system, a rendering request for displaying” and does not recite “transmitting the information of the downloaded coupon to the system when it is determined..” The only “transmitting the information to the system” is the new amended limitation “transmit downloading history information related to the downloaded coupon to the system”, which is disclosed by newly found prior art Zamer US20150193803A. Kim however does disclose that a coupon is automatically downloaded to be displayed when the vehicle gets close to the destination. The specific limitation “downloading” is not present in Kim, but the definition of “downloading” is entailed (i.e. receiving data such that it is stored). For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner is adding prior art that specifically discloses the limitation “downloading”. See the added reference Trika US20050131761A1 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
Furthermore, the graphic objects of Kim includes coupon information (i.e. 15% discount in Fig. 15) and Para. 0395, wherein 1500b is a graphic object. Lastly, the graphic objects can be displayed on a building surface (See at least Para. 0351). Additionally, see Para. 0026, “the first and second graphic objects are superimposed on a road on which the vehicle is traveling.” Therefore, the rejection with regards to Kim remains, and the added and amended limitations are rejected with regards to the newly found prior art on record.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A communication unit in claims 1 and 11-12 and 15
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. After further review of the specifications, it appears that the communication unit can include Bluetooth, RFID, IrDA, UWB, NFC, and WIFI (Para. 0162 of the specifications filed 03/09/2023), which recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claims 1 and 17 recites “transmit downloaded history information related to the downloaded coupon to the system and request the system to update the downloaded history information downloaded coupon to at the server for managing coupons”. The added limitations appear to be silent in the specifications filed 03/09/2023. The specifications describe filtering coupon information based on a user’s coupon use history, but they do not specifically recite the specific limitation of amended claim 1. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specifications in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Amended claim 12 recites “receive downloaded history information of a coupon corresponding to the AR coupon from the navigation device and request the server to update the downloaded history information based on a distance between the location of the vehicle and a physical location corresponding to the display area to which the AR coupon is mapped”. The added limitations appear to be silent in the specifications filed 03/09/2023. The specifications describe filtering coupon information based on a user’s coupon use history, but they do not specifically recite the limitation of amended claim 12. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specifications in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “the server performs validation of the downloaded history information related to the downloaded coupon received from the system and stores the downloaded history information in a database and registers the coupon on the basis of a result of the validation”. The added limitations appear to be silent in the specifications filed 03/09/2023. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specifications in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 5-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 12 and for failing to cure the deficiencies as recited above.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US20190180485A1 (henceforth Kim) in view of Trika et al. US20050131761A1 (henceforth Trika), Dixit et al. US10,573,057B1 (henceforth Dixit), and Zamer et al. US20150193803A1 (henceforth Zamer) further in view of Hussain US20150310489A1.
Regarding claim 1,
Kim discloses:
A navigation device linked to a vehicle, the navigation device comprising: a display (Para. 0014)
a communication unit configured to communicate with a system for providing an augmented reality (AR) platform; (See at least Abstract, “a graphic object superimposed”.)
a controller configured to: transmit, to the system, a request for coupon information associated with a current location of the vehicle, wherein the system collects the coupon information from a server for managing coupons. (See at least Fig. 15 and Para. 0306-0312, wherein when the vehicle is traveling into an area that is at a fixed distance from the destination, coupon information is transmitted to the vehicle. Further see Para. 0256-0257, wherein the communication unit 810 performs communication with an external apparatus to receive information relating to the destination, which includes the coupon information. The system collects coupon information from a server for managing coupons. Further see Para. 0329, “the processor 870 receives (acquires) specific information 1000 through the communication unit 810”.)
transmit, to the system, a request for associating the collected coupon information with the current location of the vehicle with map information
(See at least Fig. 15, which shows coupon information for a store B Robbins (15% discount) and Para. 0306-312, wherein information (i.e. including coupon info) is collected that is associated with the current location of the vehicle (i.e. the vehicle camera sees the destination, so the current location of the vehicle is included).)
receive, from the system, an AR matching result which comprises filtered coupon information associated with point of interest (POI) information of the map information, wherein the filtered coupon information is filtered based on sensing data of the vehicle. (See at least Fig. 15 and Para. 0308-0313, wherein the location of POI information is recognized by the camera which corresponds to coupon information based on sensing data of the vehicle (i.e. through the camera). A matching is performed based on the destination information captured from the camera such that the coupon is superimposed on a display area of the vehicle.)
displaying an AR coupon corresponding to the filtered coupon information in a display area corresponding to a physical region including a building surface or a road surface,(See Fig. 15) the physical region being determined based on the location of the POI information and a distance between the current vehicle location and the POI; (See at least Fig. 15 and Para. 0390, “output to the vicinity of the destination”, which corresponds to a distance between the vehicle location and the POI. Additionally, see Para. 0396, “graphic object that is output so the graphic object is superimposed on the destination according to the present disclosure is output in various shapes” and Para. 0351, “ when the destination 1100 is included in a building (or when the destination 1100 is a building).),receive a result of the rendering result and map and display the AR coupon in the display area included in a driving image acquired through a vision sensor of the vehicle in real time; (See at least Fig. 15 and Para. 0312-0313, wherein the AR coupon is displayed in a display area determined based on the location of the POI information. Further see Para. 0313, “In addition, the outputting of the graphic object to the display unit 830 so the graphic object is superimposed on the destination means outputting the graphic object in an augmented reality way to a position through which the driver's gaze passes to reach the destination on the windshield (or the head-up display (HUD).” A rendering request is transmitted since the object is superimposed in an augmented reality way to a position through which the driver’s gaze passes.)
acquire a coupon corresponding to the AR coupon when it is determined based on the sensing data that a distance between the vehicle and the physical location corresponding to the display area of the AR coupon is less than or equal to a predetermined distance (See at least Fig. 15 and Para. 0308-0313. Since the coupon is received from an external device based on the vehicle traveling into an area that is at a fixed distance from the destination (i.e. equal to a predetermined distance), the coupon is automatically downloaded (when it reaches the spot) such that it can be displayed on the HUD.)
Kim does not specifically state “transmit, to the system, a rendering request for displaying an AR coupon” However, Dixit teaches:
transmit, to the system, a rendering request for displaying an AR coupon (See at least Column 1, lines 61-63, “communicating a request for the second AR object or the part of the first AR object from the client device to the server”.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Dixit to include “transmit, to the system, a rendering request for displaying an AR coupon” since “The solution can be used in virtualize AR software applications. The computationally expensive rendering of AR objects happens on a server and rendered bitmaps are sent to a client device (or other end node) for display” (See Column 4, Lines 24-28, Dixit). This would create a more robust system for displaying AR objects, by requesting a server to perform computationally expensive rendering. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Dixit. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Kim does not specifically state “automatically download a coupon”.
However, Trika teaches:
automatically download a coupon. (See at least Para. 0029, “These additional coupons may be proximity-based, i.e., when the user nears certain areas of the store that sell items the user doesn't normally purchase, a coupon will be automatically downloaded to the DCC. In some embodiments, advertisements for the coupons will automatically be displayed.” A coupon is automatically downloaded based on the proximity of the user to a location.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Trika to include “automatically download a coupon” such that “coupons are automatically displayed” (Para. 0029, Trika), and such that “users is exposed to more offered coupons while roaming” (Para. 0029, Trika), which would create a more robust coupon management system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Trika. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Kim does not specifically state the limitation “transmit downloaded history information related to the downloaded coupon to the system and update the download history information at the server for managing coupons.”
However, Zamer teaches:
transmit downloaded history information related to the downloaded coupon to the system and update the download history information at the server for managing coupons. (See at least Para. 0033, “payment provider server 170 may store the coupon in a coupon depository associated with user 105's payment account at payment provider server 170.” And Para. 0044, “By using the above process 200, digital coupons received by user 105 may be automatically collected from user 105's communication history, such as emails, text messages, RSS feeds, tweets, browsing history, download history, and the like, and stored in a coupon depository. Thus, various forms of coupons received by a user may automatically be collected and organized.” Downloaded history information is transmitted to the system to update the download history information at the server for managing coupons.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Zamer to include “transmit downloaded history information related to the downloaded coupon to the system and update the download history information at the server for managing coupons” such that “various forms of coupons received by a user may be collected and organized” (Para. 0034, Zamer). This would create a more robust system for managing coupons. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Zamer. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Kim and Zamer does not specifically state “request the system to update information”.
However, Hussain teaches:
request the system to update information. (See at least Para. 0081-0082, wherein a request is made from a client device to update information in a server.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim and Zamer to incorporate the teachings of Hussain to include “request the system to update information” in order for a server to be fully updated at a client’s request. This would create a more robust system for updating information at a server, and create a more robust database for future use. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim, Zamer, and Hussain. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3,
Kim discloses:
wherein the information related to the acquired coupon comprises user information(See Fig. 15, wherein the user’s remaining distance to the destination is user information), point-of-interest (POI) information (See Fig. 15), and coupon information corresponding to the acquired coupon(See Fig. 15).
Kim does not specifically state a downloaded coupon.
However, Trika teaches:
a downloaded coupon. (See at least Para. 0029, “These additional coupons may be proximity-based, i.e., when the user nears certain areas of the store that sell items the user doesn't normally purchase, a coupon will be automatically downloaded to the DCC. In some embodiments, advertisements for the coupons will automatically be displayed.” A coupon is automatically downloaded based on the proximity of the user to a location.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Trika to include “a downloaded coupon” such that “coupons are automatically displayed” (Para. 0029, Trika), and such that “users is exposed to more offered coupons while roaming” (Para. 0029, Trika), which would create a more robust coupon management system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Trika. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Kim does not specifically state wherein the information that is transmitted is downloaded history information. However, Zamer teaches:
wherein the information that is transmitted is downloaded history information
(See at least Para. 0033, “payment provider server 170 may store the coupon in a coupon depository associated with user 105's payment account at payment provider server 170.” And Para. 0044, “By using the above process 200, digital coupons received by user 105 may be automatically collected from user 105's communication history, such as emails, text messages, RSS feeds, tweets, browsing history, download history, and the like, and stored in a coupon depository. Thus, various forms of coupons received by a user may automatically be collected and organized.” Downloaded history information is transmitted to the system to update the download history information at the server for managing coupons.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Zamer to include “wherein the information that is transmitted is downloaded history information” such that “various forms of coupons received by a user may be collected and organized” (Para. 0034, Zamer). This would create a more robust system for managing coupons. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Zamer. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5,
Kim discloses:
wherein the display area determined based on the location of the POI information is associated with the current location of the vehicle and a preset destination. (See at least Fig. 15 and Para. 0312-0313)
Regarding claim 6,
Kim discloses:
wherein when the POI information is set as a destination and a distance from the current location of the vehicle to the preset destination is greater than or equal to a threshold distance range, the control unit determines the front or side of a building area including the destination as a display area and maps and displays the AR coupon in the determined display area in a digital signage form.
(See at least Para. 0352, wherein the first distance is a distance that is greater than or equal a threshold range and Para. 0355-0356, wherein the coupon is displayed on the building area including the destination as a display area.)
Regarding claim 7,
Kim discloses:
wherein when the POI information is set as a destination and a distance from the current location of the vehicle to the preset destination is less than a threshold distance range, the control unit displays an AR carpet for guiding entry to the destination on a road in the driving image as a display area and sequentially maps and displays the AR coupon on the AR carpet.
(See at least Fig. 22, Fig. 25 and Para. 0353, “In addition, when the distance between the vehicle and the preset destination 1100 is a second distance (for example, 100 m to 200 m) that is shorter than the first distance, the processor 870 further displays a second-type graphic object (for example, as illustrated in FIG. 11B(b), a graphic carpet 1150 expressing a path for the vehicle to travel on up to the destination).“)
Regarding claim 8,
Kim discloses:
wherein while the AR carpet is displayed on the road in the driving image, a varied AR coupon is mapped and displayed on the front or side of the building area including the destination in a digital signage form. (See at least Fig. 15.)
Regarding claim 12,
Kim, Trika, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain discloses the same limitations as recited in independent claim 1 above, and therefore the same rejection and obviousness rational applies to claim 12. Kim further discloses:
Assess a server for managing coupons to collect coupon information associated with a current location of the vehicle and associate the coupon information with map information in response to a request received from the navigation device.
(See at least Fig. 15 and Para. 0308-0313. The coupon is received from an external device (i.e. assessing/requesting a server for managing coupons to collect coupon info) based on the vehicle traveling into an area (i.e. current location of the vehicle) that is at a fixed distance from the destination (i.e. via map information).)
Regarding claim 14,
Kim discloses:
wherein the filtering of the coupon information is performed based on the sensing data of the vehicle including status information of the vehicle, information on the current location of the vehicle, information on a preset destination, and information on a driving time of the vehicle.
(See at least Para. 0306-0312, wherein the filtering of the coupon information is based on the vehicle location and camera (i.e. covers sensing data of the vehicle and information on the current location of the vehicle), information on the destination, and information on a driving time of the vehicle (Para. 0413-0416).)
Regarding claim 16,
Kim, Trika, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Trika, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain further in view of Cai et al. US20190132406A1 (henceforth Cai).
Regarding claim 9,
Kim, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Kim does not specifically state wherein when the vehicle passes through the location of the POI information corresponding to the AR coupon, the control unit downloads the coupon corresponding to the AR coupon and transmits the information related to the downloaded coupon to the system.
However, Cai teaches:
wherein when the vehicle passes through the location of the POI information corresponding to the AR coupon, the control unit downloads the coupon corresponding to the AR coupon and transmits the information related to the downloaded coupon to the system.
(See at least Para. 0102, “The server learns, according to a first smart device's location service notification, that the user's geographic location has moved to within the vicinity of “the mall.” The server determines, based on local historical data collected from all the smart devices of different users, that the majority of users use coupons when in the vicinity of “the mall.” Then the server pushes “coupon information” to the user or pushes a download address for “coupon download software” to the user.” When the vehicle passes through the vicinity of the mall, the control unit downloads the coupon and transmits info (coupon info) to the system.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Cai to include “wherein when the vehicle passes through the location of the POI information corresponding to the AR coupon, the control unit downloads the coupon corresponding to the AR coupon and transmits the information related to the downloaded coupon to the system” since “in the event that a user wishes to purchase merchandise, the user can directly use the “coupon information” pushed by the first smart device and thereby save time.” (Para. 0103, Cai). This would create a more robust coupon distribution system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Cai. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Trika, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain further in view of Yamada US20170200048A1.
Regarding claim 10,
Kim, Trika, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Kim does not specifically state “wherein when the vehicle enters the building area including the POI information corresponding to the AR coupon, the control unit downloads a plurality of coupons corresponding to a plurality of AR coupons included in the building area and transmits information related to the plurality of downloaded coupons to the system”.
However, Yamada teaches:
wherein when the vehicle enters the building area including the POI information corresponding to the AR coupon, the control unit acquires a plurality of coupons corresponding to a plurality of AR coupons included in the building area and transmits information related to the plurality of acquired coupons to the system. (See at least Para. 0057.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Yamada to include “wherein when the vehicle enters the building area including the POI information corresponding to the AR coupon, the control unit acquires a plurality of coupons corresponding to a plurality of AR coupons included in the building area and transmits information related to the plurality of acquired coupons to the system” since “when AR displaying establishment information on a captured image of a building having a plurality of levels, it is possible to allow a user to easily ascertain a level to which the establishment information displayed in a superimposed manner corresponds.” (Para. 0014, Yamada). This would create a more robust coupon distribution system for a building that comprises restaurants/retailers on multiple floors. This would create a more robust coupon distribution system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Yamada. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Kim and Yamada does not specifically state a downloaded coupon.
However, Trika teaches:
a downloaded coupon. (See at least Para. 0029, “These additional coupons may be proximity-based, i.e., when the user nears certain areas of the store that sell items the user doesn't normally purchase, a coupon will be automatically downloaded to the DCC. In some embodiments, advertisements for the coupons will automatically be displayed.” A coupon is automatically downloaded based on the proximity of the user to a location.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim and Yamada to incorporate the teachings of Trika to include “a downloaded coupon” such that “coupons are automatically displayed” (Para. 0029, Trika), and such that “users is exposed to more offered coupons while roaming” (Para. 0029, Trika), which would create a more robust coupon management system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim, Yamada and Trika. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Trika, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain further in view of Park et al US20150201439A1.
Regarding claim 11,
Kim, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Kim does not specifically state wherein the controller is further configured to display identification information for sharing the downloaded coupon with a mobile terminal, wherein the mobile terminal scans the displayed identification information to download the coupon on the basis of user authentication.
However, Park teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to display identification information for sharing the downloaded coupon with a mobile terminal, wherein the mobile terminal scans the displayed identification information to download the coupon on the basis of user authentication
(See at least Para. 0119, “sharing of electronic data between the first information processing device 10 and the second information processing device 40, forwarding, exchanging, sharing, and paring of data including information regarding trading, making payment, web linking, advertisements and games, downloading coupons, payment information, message forwarding, authentication, security, products, works or locations, etc., service authentication that requires authenticated first or second information processing device or authentication of a user of the first or second information processing device, management of authorizations for reading, deleting, modifying, uploading, or downloading data”.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Park to include “wherein the controller is further configured to display identification information for sharing the downloaded coupon with a mobile terminal, wherein the mobile terminal scans the displayed identification information to download the coupon on the basis of user authentication” in order to create a more robust coupon management system, such that authentication is required to download data, which is more secure for the user. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Park. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Trika, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain further in view of Mason-Gugenheim et al. US20170228760A1 (henceforth Mason-Gugenheim)
Regarding claim 13,
Kim, Trika, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain discloses the limitations as recited in claim 12 above.
Kim further discloses:
coupon information (See Fig. 15), a usage status (See Fig. 15, “15% discount), POI information (Fig. 15)
Kim does not specifically state transmitting registration information of the coupon to the server including coupon information, an expiration date and user information of the coupon. However, Mason-Gugenheim teaches:
transmitting registration information of the coupon to the server including coupon information, an expiration date and user information of the coupon (See at least Para. 0034, “Information associated with the redeemed coupon offers 110 may be transmitted from the point-of-sale terminal 112 to the enterprise server for aggregation and analysis” and Para. 0069, “information associated with coupon redemptions may include a coupon offer amount or discount, a number of coupon offer redemptions, a time and date of redemption, a point-of-sale terminal identification number, an employee identification number, a location associated with the point-of-sale terminal, a purchase price, an coupon offer expiration date, a deadline for clearing a coupon offer redemption, a product barcode, a coupon offer barcode, a uniquely-generated barcode of multiple coupon offers that are to be redeemed in a transaction, user profile information, payment information, contact information, audio, images, text, video, and/or any other media content.” Information of the coupon is transmitted to the server.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Mason-Gugenheim to include “transmitting registration information of the coupon to the server including coupon information, an expiration date and user information of the coupon” in order to create a more robust coupon management system and there is a need for “efficient and environmentally-conscious modernization of coupon redemption processes” (Para. 0007, Mason-Gugenheim). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Mason-Gugenheim. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Trika, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain further in view of Rangaraj US20190182046A1.
Regarding claim 15,
Kim, Trika, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain discloses the limitations as recited in claim 12 above. Kim further discloses acquiring a coupon that is uploaded to a server, and wherein the communication unit further comprises a sub-module for performing communication with a mobile terminal (See Para. 0457.)
Kim does not specifically state “in response to receiving a signal for accessing the AR platform providing apparatus through a preset application, the processor requests the mobile terminal to perform user authentication and download data that is uploaded to the server on the basis of a result of the user authentication.”
However, Rangaraj teaches:
in response to receiving a signal for accessing the AR platform providing apparatus through a preset application, the processor requests the mobile terminal to perform user authentication and download data that is uploaded to the server on the basis of a result of the user authentication
(See at least Para. 0031, “the client device 110 and the service provider server 130 use the connection over network 160 to perform various transactions once client service provider application 112 has authenticate itself with transaction processing application 132. For instance, after authentication, client service provider application 112 may then be permitted to make or receive payments, download or play restricted media content, and the like”.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Rangaraj to include “in response to receiving a signal for accessing the AR platform providing apparatus through a preset application, the processor requests the mobile terminal to perform user authentication and download data that is uploaded to the server on the basis of a result of the user authentication” in order to have a more secure service that is less easy to compromise (Para. 0003, Rangaraj). This would create a more robust coupon management system, such that authentication is required to download data, which is more secure for the user. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Rangaraj. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Trika, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain further in view of Shipley et al. US20150025971A1 (henceforth Shipley) and Rangaraj US20190182046A1.
Regarding claim 17,
Kim, Trika, Dixit, Zamer, and Hussain discloses the same limitations as recited in independent claim 1 above, and therefore the same rejection and obviousness rational applies to claim 17.
Kim does not specifically state the server performs validation of the information related to the downloaded coupon received from the system and stores the information in a database and registers the coupon on the basis of a result of the validation. However, Shipley teaches:
the server performs validation of the information related to the downloaded coupon received from the system and stores the information in a database and registers the coupon on the basis of a result of the validation (See at least Para. 0031, “the authentication system 216 can comprise a database for validating coupons and other promotions, and a web server for accepting the authentication requests 214 and sending back authentication answers 218 to the promotion verification system 208. The authentication system 216 can send an authentication answer 218 back to the promotion verification system 208 to indicate whether or not the coupon 204 is authentic, has not-expired, and has not been previously redeemed by the consumer 112.”)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Shipley to include “the server performs validation of the information related to the downloaded coupon received from the system and stores the information related to the downloaded coupon in a database and registers the coupon on the basis of a result of the validation” such that it can be “indicated whether or not the coupon 204 is authentic, has not-expired, and has not been previously redeemed by the consumer 112” (Para. 0031, Shipley). This would create a more safe and robust system for a coupon management system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Shipley. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Kim and Shipley does not specifically state “downloaded history information”.
However, Zamer teaches:
downloaded history information
(See at least Para. 0033, “payment provider server 170 may store the coupon in a coupon depository associated with user 105's payment account at payment provider server 170.” And Para. 0044, “By using the above process 200, digital coupons received by user 105 may be automatically collected from user 105's communication history, such as emails, text messages, RSS feeds, tweets, browsing history, download history, and the like, and stored in a coupon depository. Thus, various forms of coupons received by a user may automatically be collected and organized.” Downloaded history information is transmitted to the system to update the download history information at the server for managing coupons.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim and Shipley to incorporate the teachings of Zamer to include “downloaded history information” such that “various forms of coupons received by a user may be collected and organized” (Para. 0034, Zamer). This would create a more robust system for managing coupons. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Zamer. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Kim does not specifically state the mobile terminal executes a preset application to access the AR platform providing apparatus and downloads a coupon uploaded to the server on the basis of a result of user authentication..
However, Rangaraj teaches:
the mobile terminal executes a preset application to access the AR platform providing apparatus and downloads a coupon uploaded to the server on the basis of a result of user authentication. (See at least Para. 0031, “the client device 110 and the service provider server 130 use the connection over network 160 to perform various transactions once client service provider application 112 has authenticate itself with transaction processing application 132. For instance, after authentication, client service provider application 112 may then be permitted to make or receive payments, download or play restricted media content, and the like”.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Rangaraj to include “the mobile terminal executes a preset application to access the AR platform providing apparatus and downloads a coupon uploaded to the server on the basis of a result of user authentication” in order to have a more secure service that is less easy to compromise (Para. 0003, Rangaraj). This would create a more robust coupon management system, such that authentication is required to download data, which is more secure for the user. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kim and Rangaraj. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights