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 .
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-20 are directed to a process (method), machine (system), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of event preparation: providing a reminder, a list of items needed, locating items needed for the event, and adjusting the list based on forecast weather.
Claim 1 discloses a method, comprising: A method for event-related item tracking, the method comprising:
receiving, a reminder of an upcoming event for a first user; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
retrieving a list of items needed by the first user for the upcoming event; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk),
retrieving location information of a first item from the list of items, wherein the location is associated with the first item; and sending the list of items and the location information of the first item for presentation to the first user, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method to, provide an image of the location information of the first item (following rules or procedures, observation, evaluation, judgement, mitigating risk- claim 2), pointing to the location of the first item (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 3), updating the location for the item by seeking the original image of the item (following rules or procedures, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 4), receiving an image of the original item and its expected location, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk - claim 5), receiving an updated image of the item and verifying if its location has changed and providing any updated location of the first item to the user (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk - Claim 6), receiving a reminder of a second upcoming event and a list of items needed for the event and noting a third event related to the second event, retrieving a list of items for the third event for potential updating lists, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk - Claim 7), and checking forecast weather data for the first event, adjusting the list for the first event based on the weather data (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk - Claim 8).
Each of these claimed limitations employ mental processes involving mental
processes, observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, as well as organizing human activity - fundamental economic principles based on mitigating risk, and managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions.
Claims 9-20 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-8.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a computer, an event database associated with personal information management software, an electronic list, a location database, a location database generated using image information, transmitting via a computer the electronic list, an augmented reality presentation of the location information, a pairing signal from the first computer to a second computer, a first camera, the image information of the first item;
analyzing, via the first computer, one or more processors, computer-readable storage media,
a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, with the program instructions being executable by a computer.
These limitations are sufficient to qualify as a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
The claimed invention integrates the abstract idea of event preparation, using reminders and item tracking through the use of additional elements. The camera element serves to improve the locating of items needed for an event, supplementing location data with an image and augmented reality presentation, and thus improves the technology of event preparation, providing additional locating information and updates to the user. The ordered combination of the limitations adds a dimension of visuality to an otherwise text presentation of item location.
Since the limitations in the claims 1-20 present a practical application of the exception, they translate the described invention into a patent eligible application, thus the claims are directed to statutory subject matter and are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §102(a)2
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form
the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)2 as being taught by
Patel, (US 20230306837 A1), hereafter Patel, “Contextual Item Discovery and Pattern Inculcated Reminder Mechanism.”
Regarding Claim 1, A computer-implemented method for event-related item tracking, Patel teaches, (reminder systems and determining an event [ ], and associating with the event one or more items, [ ], and a location for the items, [Abstract]), the method comprising:
receiving, via a first computer and from an event database associated with personal
information management software, a reminder of an upcoming event for a first user; (a computer-implemented method including: determining, by a computing device, an event in which a user will participate, provide a reminder to the user [ ], based on the determination, [0004]),
retrieving, via the first computer, an electronic list of items needed by the first user for
the upcoming event; (determining, by a computing device, an event in which a user will participate; associating, by the computing device, one or more items with the event based on the determination, [0004]),
retrieving, via the first computer and from a location database, location information of a first item from the electronic list of items, wherein the location database was generated using image information associated with the first item; (determining a location of the one or more items associated with the event including that the user does not possess any combination of the one or more items, [0003]); and
transmitting, via the first computer, the electronic list of items and the location
information of the first item for presentation to the first user, (the system will provide a notification to the user that the item is needed. In embodiments, the system may also provide the location of such item, [0095]).
Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 1, wherein the first computer is associated with a camera, Patel teaches, (the items can be recognized by the item recognition module
410. For example, the item recognition module 410 may be a RFID reader or a smart camera which includes object recognition software known in the art, [0077] and the method further comprises:
receiving, via the first computer and from the camera, the image information of the first item; (smart cameras with object recognition; [0065]),
analyzing, via the first computer, the image information;
determining, via the first computer, a location of the first item, (the item recognition module 410 may monitor the proximity of items and determine which items are within range, which are not within range, and which items are going in and out of the range. In this way, the systems provided herein will have situation awareness of the location of items, [0089]), based on the analysis; and
storing, via the first computer, the location information in the location database, (In
further embodiments, the machine learning module 415 may create time based and association-based item lists and store them in the device, e.g., storage system 430, i.e., using unsupervised machine learning, [0080]), the location information representing the location of the first item, (the systems provide herein will have situation awareness of the location of items, [0077]).
Regarding claim 6, The method of claim 5, further comprising:
receiving, via the first computer and from the camera, updated image information of the first item;
analyzing, via the first computer, the updated image information;
determining, via the first computer and based on the analysis of the updated image
information, whether the location of the first item has changed to an updated location; Patel teaches, (based on the certain event recognized to occur, the system will determine which items are needed for the event that is about to occur and, using the item recognition module 410 will determine the location of such items, [0095], and
in response to determining that the location has changed to an updated location, storing, via the first computer, updated location information for the first item in the location database, (In further embodiments, the machine learning module 415 may create time based and association-based item lists and store them in the device, e.g., storage system 430, i.e., using unsupervised machine learning, [0080]), wherein the transmitting of the location information for the first item for presentation to the first user comprises transmitting the updated location information for the first item for presentation of the updated location information to the first user, (program instructions executable to [ ], maintain track of a location of the items associated with the user event; [Claim 12]).
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, via the first computer and from the event database, a reminder of a second
upcoming event for the first user; Patel teaches, (the systems, processes and/or computer program products (“contextual item discovery and pattern inculcated reminder mechanism”) described herein may learn usage habits by an associated rule learning method and/or process. A table 500 maybe generated based on captured representative set of data, [ ] the data set may include different items as tracked by the item recognition module 410.These items may include, e.g., purse, car key, home key, laptop, office badge, shopping bag, etc., [0086]), and
obtaining, via the first computer, an electronic list of items needed by the first user for the second upcoming event, the obtaining comprising performing clustering of event similarity, finding a first cluster comprising the second event and a third event, and retrieving an electronic list of items for the third event. (the datasets may be used to learn the potential clustering of data. For example, as the data is captured over time, it can be grouped together by an association rule learning method as representatively shown by the shaded boxes. The systems, processes and/or computer program products can, for example, learn about item association based on calendar entries or user habits as described herein to determine the following examples: (i) type of assignments e.g., sales presentation; (ii) purpose of assignments using, e.g., natural language processing to decipher from meeting description/attachments; (iii) duration of assignments; and (iv) place of assignments i.e., at which location the meeting is happening, [0087].
Claims 9, 13-15, and 17 are rejected for reasons corresponding to those of claims 1, and 5-7. In these claims, the addition of the system of claim 9, (claims 9, 13-15), and the computer product of claim 17, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 based on the referenced prior art. Patel teaches, a system including a processor, a computer readable memory, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, [0005], and a computer program product including one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, [0004]).
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
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 2, 10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Patel, (US
20230306837 A1), hereafter Patel, “Contextual Item Discovery and Pattern Inculcated Reminder Mechanism,” in view of Rao, (US 20160086116 A1), hereafter Rao, “Method and System of an Automatically Managed Calendar and Contextual Task List.”
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the location information of the first item comprises a transmission for augmented reality presentation of the location information of the first item. Patel does not teach, Rao teaches, (a computer system includes an application implemented with a computer processor that automatically discovers a list items from a set of user data sources, wherein the list items correspond to automatic recommendations for a set of calendar events and tasks, [0006], each list item can be associated with one or more properties, [ ] and location property (e.g. refers to the physical location where an event can occur and/or to the location trigger of a to-do item; ‘start showing on’ property, [0029], and communications module 212 can obtain information from the other modules of and compose natural languages messages (e.g. emails, text messages, push notifications, augmented-reality messages, pop ops, list item text, etc.) to users, [0043]).
Patel and Rao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of agenda management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the event tracking and preparation tools of Patel with the contextual discovery and message capabilities of Rao to provide users enhanced communication messaging [0043] and automatic discovery and management of their calendar and task list agendas, [0005].
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected for reasons corresponding to those of claim 2. In these claims, the addition of the system of claim 9, (claim 10), and the computer product of claim 17, (claim 18), does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 based on the referenced prior art. Patel teaches, a system including a processor, a computer readable memory, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, [0005], and a computer program product including one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, [0004]).
Claims 3, 11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Patel, (US
20230306837 A1), hereafter Patel, “Contextual Item Discovery and Pattern Inculcated Reminder Mechanism,” in view of Rao, (US 20160086116 A1), hereafter Rao, “Method and System of an Automatically Managed Calendar and Contextual Task List,” in view of Hofmann, (US 20150040074 A1), hereafter Hofmann, “Methods and Systems for Enabling Creation of Augmented Reality Content.”
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 2, wherein the location information is transmitted with location of the first item. Patel does not teach, Hofmann teaches, (The results of the search (e.g., "HQ features; obj id" arrow) has several possibilities. The search results returned to user device 1018 may include one match found, and an identifier of the object ("object ID") matching the target object in the candidate image is returned to user device 1018.In some embodiments, the features package that enables tracking of the object within augmented reality view (i.e., tracking resources) is also returned, [0070]),
Patel and Hofmann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of locating objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the event tracking and preparation tools of Patel with the augmented reality highlighting features of Hofmann so that augmented reality content can be applied to real world objects, [0002].
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected for reasons corresponding to those of claim 3. In these claims, the addition of the system of claim 9, (claim 11), and the computer product of claim 19, (claim 20), does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 based on the referenced prior art. Patel teaches, a system including a processor, a computer readable memory, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, [0005], and a computer program product including one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, [0004]).
Claims 4, 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Patel, (US
20230306837 A1), hereafter Patel, “Contextual Item Discovery and Pattern Inculcated Reminder Mechanism,” in view of Shifman, (WO 2015101991 A1), hereafter Shifman, “ Method for Providing On-Demand Digital Representations to Mobile Devices in Other Geographic Locations.”
Regarding claim 4, The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting a pairing signal from the first computer to a second computer associated with a first camera for generating the image information for the location database. Patel does not teach, Shifman teaches, a system providing an on-demand digital file of a geographic location. The system comprises: a computer for linking to a communications network, configured for: receiving, from over the communications network, at least one request from at least one first computer device for at least one digital file associated with a second geographic location; transmitting, over the communications network, the at least one request to the at least one second computer device to obtain the a digital file associated with a second geographic location, the request including instructions for transmitting the digital file to the first computer device, over the communications network. [p.5], And at least one of the computer devices include mobile telephones, and at least one computer device additionally includes a camera, Shifman, [p.5].
Patel and Shifman are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they
are both in the field of locating items of interest. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the event reminder and event item list development method of Patel with the digital imagery system of Shifman to provide the user [ ] digital data of a digital representation of something, at or proximate to a geographic location, [p.3].
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected for reasons corresponding to those of claim 4. In these claim, the addition of the system of claim 9, (claim 12), and the computer product of claim 17, (claim 20), does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 based on the referenced prior art. Patel teaches, a system including a processor, a computer readable memory, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, [0005], and a computer program product including one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, [0004]).
Claims 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Patel, (US
20230306837 A1), hereafter Patel, “Contextual Item Discovery and Pattern Inculcated Reminder Mechanism,” in view of Joshi, (US 20170316385 A1), hereafter Joshi, “Contextually-Aware Insights for Calendar Events.”
Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 1, further comprising:
retrieving, via the first computer, weather data that is forecasted for a timing of the
upcoming event; Patel does not teach, Joshi teaches, (A system, [ ] receiving scheduling data defining a calendar event; obtaining contextual data from a plurality of resources, the contextual data including at least one of scheduling data, workload data, work history data, payment data, weather data, map data, traffic data, or location data; [Claim 14], and
adjusting, via the first computer, the electronic list of items for the first event based on the retrieved weather data, (identifying a pattern of the contextual data indicating a presence of a condition that affects the calendar event; generating data defining an insight describing aspects of the condition; and causing a display of one or more graphical elements indicating the insight on a user interface rendered on a display device in communication with the system, [claim 14], and generating data defining the insight comprises generating a ranked list of items, wherein individual items of the ranked list of items comprise resolutions configure to cause a generation or a modification of a data object to provide notice of the condition, [claim 15]).
Patel and Joshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of contextual analysis for event and agenda management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the event tracking and preparation tools of Patel with the new insight discovery of Joshi to provide salient facts regarding [ ] updates to conditions that can affect one or more calendar events, Joshi, [0004].
Claim 16 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those of claim 8. In this claim, the addition of the system of claim 9 does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 based on the referenced prior art. Patel teaches, a system including a processor, a computer readable memory, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, [0005].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624