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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This non-final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 12/15/2025. Currently, claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 16-18, 21, 27, 28 and 31-38 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 21 and 31 have been amended. Claims 32-38 are newly added. Claims 2, 5-7, 11-15, 19, 20, 22-26, 29 and 30 have been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s cancellation to claims 22-26, 29 and 30 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 22-26, 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as set forth in the previous action.
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, 3, 4, 8-10, 16-18, 21, 27, 28 and 31-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method and system for facilitating and processing a transaction.
Exemplary claim 31 recites in part,
“providing a product to a user as part of the consumer transaction…or providing information regarding the consumer transaction to the user…;
capturing data regarding a sensing region with one or more sensors of an information processing module…;
determining an identity of the user with the information processing module based upon the data captured by the one or more sensors;
determining if the user has installed an integrated mobile application that has stored a payment card for the consumer transaction through a mobile computing device;
facilitating delivery of the product…or providing additional information to the user…, or instructing a device…based on a detected object, the user being detected, or a detected event being located within the sensing region, and
configuring…to detect the user, the object, and the event within the sensing region based on the captured data.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data, 2) processing the captured data to determine user identity, 3) detecting mobile app, 4) displaying information transaction data, and 3) providing purchased product.
The above steps describe the process of facilitating and providing a product associated with a transaction. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (sales or marketing activities or behaviors) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers marketing or sales activities or behaviors, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The cited claims recite additional elements in the form of one or more computing elements (product delivery unit, customer engagement interface, processor, memory, communication module, one or more sensors, controlling unit, information processing module) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract ideas identified above. The computing elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The computing elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 31 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 31, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 8-10, 16-18, 21, 27, 28 and 32-38 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 16-18, 21, 29-31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2009/0048708 (DeLine), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2013/0246171 (Carapelli).
Referring to claim 1, DeLine discloses a system for managing and processing a consumer transaction, comprising:
a product delivery unit configured to provide a product to a user as part of the consumer transaction; or [See paragraphs 0054, 0057, 0069]
a customer engagement interface configured to provide information regarding the consumer transaction to the user, and [See paragraphs 0049, 0050, 0051, 0054, Figs. 7 & 8]
an information processing module comprising:
one or more sensors configured to capture data regarding a sensing region; [See paragraphs 0039-0041, 0044, 0050]
a processor, and [See paragraphs 0038, 0040, Fig. 4]
a non-transient storage medium, [See paragraphs 0038, 0047, Fig. 4]
wherein the information processing module is configured to: facilitate delivery of the product, or provide additional information to the user by way of the customer engagement interface, or instruct a device, based on a detected object, the user being detected, or a detected event being located within the sensing region; [See paragraphs 0039-0041, 0044, 0051]
wherein the information processing module is configured to detect the user, the object, and the event within the sensing region based on the captured data, and [See paragraphs 0044, 0047, 0051]
wherein the information processing module comprises a communication module and a controlling unit. [See paragraphs 0038, 0040, 0042]
wherein the one or more sensors comprises at least one of: a camera, a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) sensor, and a Near Field Communication (NFC) sensor; and [See paragraphs 0037, 0044, 0055, 0056]
wherein the information processing module is configured to determine an identity of the user based upon the data captured by the one or more sensors, and [See paragraphs 0044, 0047, 0048]
DeLine does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the system is configured to determine if the user has installed an integrated mobile application that has stored a payment card for the consumer transaction through a mobile computing device.
Carapelli teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the system is configured to determine if the user has installed an integrated mobile application that has stored a payment card for the consumer transaction through a mobile computing device. [See paragraphs 0010, 0011, 0038, 0048]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of DeLine to have incorporated a mobile app feature as in Carapelli with the motivation of identifying a user via a mobile app and completing a transaction therewith. [See Carapelli paragraphs 0010-0012; DeLine paragraphs 0039, 0040, 0044, 0067]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the system is configured to utilize image processing and classification based on a video feed captured by the camera for sensing, verifying, and/or predicting, the degree of persons, users, objects, and events in the sensing region of the system. [See DeLine paragraphs 0047, 0048, 0054]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the system according to claim 3, wherein the sensing region comprises a defined boundary, a proximal distance, or a geographical range. [See DeLine paragraphs 0040, 0044, 0047]
Referring to claim 9, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to calculate a value of goods possessed by the user, within an area which the user controls, or within the sensing region. [See paragraphs DeLine 0007, 0049, Fig. 7]
Referring to claim 10, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the customer engagement interface further comprises one or more of a touchscreen, a card reader, or a pin pad. [See DeLine paragraphs 0037-0039, 0042]
Referring to claim 16, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the product delivery unit comprises a fuel dispenser or a charging station, and the customer engagement interface is integrally formed with the fuel dispenser or the charging station. [See DeLine paragraphs 0036-0039, 0057, Figs. 1-3, 7, 8]
Referring to claim 17, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the customer engagement interface comprises a point of sale (POS) system configured to facilitate a sale of goods or services for a retail environment or a quick service environment. [See DeLine paragraphs 0069, 0071]
Referring to claim 18, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the customer engagement interface is configured to display information to the user about a proposed transaction, and receive passive or active input from the user required to complete the proposed transaction. [See DeLine paragraph 0051, 0059]
Referring to claim 21, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the communication module further comprises one or more of: an infrared light projection unit; a microphone; a speaker; an olfactory sensor; a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) sensor, and a radio signal sensor. [See DeLine paragraphs 0037, 0044, 0055; Carapelli paragraphs 0038, 0042]
Referring to claim 31, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claim 38, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising displaying information when the user is located within a predetermined distance from an engagement interface, a display device, or the product delivery unit. [See DeLine paragraphs 0049, 0050, 0051, 0054, Figs. 7 & 8]
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLine in view of Carapelli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0114743 (Fano et al. – hereinafter Fano).
Referring to claim 8, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the system of claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the system is configured to determine if a person detected by the system is not currently registered with the system and, when the person is not currently registered with the system, anonymously store identifying details associated with the person in order to generate a profile and provide automated interaction(s) and/or transaction(s) upon next occurrence of interaction between the person and the system.
Fano teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the system is configured to determine if a person detected by the system is not currently registered with the system and, when the person is not currently registered with the system, anonymously store identifying details associated with the person in order to generate a profile and provide automated interaction(s) and/or transaction(s) upon next occurrence of interaction between the person and the system. [See paragraphs 0125, 0192]
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fano to the combination of DeLine and Carapelli would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Fano to the teachings of the combination of DeLine and Carapelli would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such individualized customer interaction. Further, applying the individualized interaction feature to the teachings of the combination of DeLine and Carapelli, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient individualized advertisement interaction with a user. [See Fano paragraphs 0030-0036]
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLine in view of Carapelli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2011/0273371 (Payne et al. – hereinafter Payne).
Referring to claim 27, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the system of claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the system further comprises an industrial controller configured to manage operations of one or more of: a fuel storage tank; a fuel line sensor system; a firewall; a price sign associated with the consumer transaction; inventory control; supply chain product acquisition, and product distribution.
Payne teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the system further comprises an industrial controller configured to manage operations of one or more of: a fuel storage tank; a fuel line sensor system; a firewall; a price sign associated with the consumer transaction; inventory control; supply chain product acquisition, and product distribution. [See paragraphs 0044, 0119, 0055, 0120]
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Payne to the teachings of the combination of DeLine and Carapelli would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Payne to the teachings of the combination of DeLine and Carapelli would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such mobile commerce process. Further, applying mobile commerce process to the combination of DeLine and Carapelli, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient processing of a mobile transaction. [See Payne paragraph 0044]
Claims 28, 32-34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLine in view of Carapelli as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2013/0097031 (Royyuru et al. – hereinafter Royyuru).
Referring to claim 28, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the system of claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: further comprising: a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) sensor configured to scan an RFID associated with the product, wherein the system is configured to detect the RFID associated with the product when the product is placed within the sensing region.
Royyuru teaches a system with the limitation: further comprising: a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) sensor configured to scan an RFID associated with the product, wherein the system is configured to detect the RFID associated with the product when the product is placed within the sensing region. [See paragraphs 0040, 0047, 0067]
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Royyuru to the combined teachings of DeLine and Carapelli would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Royyuru to the teaching of the combination of DeLine and Carapelli would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such mobile commerce process. Further, applying mobile commerce process to the combination of DeLine and Carapelli, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient processing of a mobile transaction. [See Royyuru paragraphs 0028-0030]
Referring to claim 32, the combination of DeLine, Carapelli and Royyuru discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising providing upsell cues to a vendor of a retail environment when the user is identified, where the upsell cues are determined based on characteristics of the user. [See Royyuru paragraphs 0052, 0053, 0055, 0097]
Referring to claim 33, the combination of DeLine, Carapelli and Royyuru discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising receiving input by way of the integrated mobile application, and transmitting the input from the mobile computing device storing the integrated mobile application to the customer engagement interface via an internet connection. [See Royyuru paragraphs 0039, 0045, 0047, 0060, 0066, 0075]
Referring to claim 34, the combination of DeLine, Carapelli and Royyuru discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving payment for the product from a profile associated with the user. [See Royyuru paragraphs 0068, 0069]
Referring to claim 37, the combination of DeLine, Carapelli and Royyuru discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising: managing a digital inventory of a store containing the product based upon a number of RFIDs scanned by a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) sensor. [See Royyuru paragraphs 0040, 0047, 0067]
Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLine in view of Carapelli as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0074605 (Sanchez et al. – hereinafter Sanchez).
Referring to claim 35, the combination of DeLine and Carapelli discloses the method of claim 31 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: further comprising authenticating the user by presenting a Personal Identification Number (PIN) entry screen on the mobile computing device belonging to the user, or within an engagement interface, and receiving a PIN from the user.
Sanchez teaches a system with the limitation: further comprising authenticating the user by presenting a Personal Identification Number (PIN) entry screen on the mobile computing device belonging to the user, or within an engagement interface, and receiving a PIN from the user. [See paragraphs 0087, 0110, 0132]
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Sanchez to the combined teachings of DeLine and Carapelli would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Sanchez to the teaching of the combination of DeLine and Carapelli would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such mobile commerce process. Further, applying mobile commerce process to the combination of DeLine and Carapelli, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient processing of a mobile transaction. [See Sanchez paragraphs 0051-0056]
Referring to claim 36, the combination of DeLine, Carapelli and Sanchez discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising providing a push notification or text message to the mobile computing device belonging to the user or an engagement interface, the push notification or text message providing additional validation options. [See Sanchez paragraphs 0053, 0122]
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 16-18 and 21-31 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A
In response to Applicant's arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The recited limitation, “the information processing module is configured to determine an identity of the user based upon the data captured by the one or more sensor”, simply describes processing/analyzing the captured data to determine user identity. This limitation is encompassed in the identified abstract idea.
The recited limitation, “the one or more sensors comprises at least one of: a camera, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) sensor, and a Near Field Communication (NFC) sensor”, simply describes computer elements for capturing/collecting user data. The cited computing elements represent using generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I).
In addition, the recited “one or more sensors” are used for gathering data associated with a user. The use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(III).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The additional features of, “the one or more sensors comprises at least one of: a camera, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) sensor, and a Near Field Communication (NFC) sensor” and “the information processing module is configured to determine an identity of the user based upon the data captured by the one or more sensor”, simply describes sensors for data collection and processing/analyzing the captured data to determine user identity. The result of the processed/analyzed data is used to present information (advertisement or other contents) to a user.
Thus, limitations (i) and (ii) amount to collecting and analyzing data, and displaying the results. The courts have held that gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, does not amount to improvement to any technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 16-18, 21, 27, 28 and 31-38 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
102 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 16-18, 21 and 29-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8, 22-24 and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
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 at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627