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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 1-34 are cancelled.
Claims 35-54 are pending.
Claims 35-54 are new claims.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
This Application is a continuation of Application 15943434.
Election by Original Presentation
Newly filed claims 35-54 from 9/9/2025 are directed to an invention that is
independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 18-28 and 32-34 from 4/23/2025 are directed to a triggering device, broadcasting device, and environmental data sets, while Claims 35-54 from 9/9/2025 make no mention of these items but states new concepts such as wireless coverage environment and internet content providers.
Claims 18-28 and 32-34 from 4/23/2025 are directed to a mediation engine with respect to combining data from the environmental data sets, while Claims 35-54 from 9/9/2025 provides new concepts such as determining capabilities of the ICD, receiving user data feeds, and using a machine learning algorithm to determine content preference predictions.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 35-54 from 9/9/2025 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Examiner notes that any arguments directed to Claims 35-54 from 9/9/2025 have not been addressed. The office action is based on Claims 18-28 and 32-34 from 4/23/2025.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 15943434 filed on April 2, 2018 now U.S. Patent 11741497 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents
cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2025 with respect to 35 USC 101 and claim objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections and objections are maintained.
Drawing Objections
Applicant’s drawings are still objected to since Applicant did not amend the drawings. Figures 5, 7, 11, 15, 16-20, and 21-23 are missing numerical labeling. For example, figure 5 has no numerical labeling for the EDS, ME, and PE. In addition, figure 7 has no labeling for the ML complex, but all other components of figure 7 have labeling. In addition, figure 11 is missing numerical numbering such as the publishing engine. It is not clear why some have labeling and some do not in the figures. The drawings are objected to since they are incomplete and missing details. Examiner advises Applicant to make the drawings complete. See MPEP 608.02(d).
35 USC 101
Applicant argues on page 9
Among other things, claim 1 expressly recites an Internet connected device (ICD) associated with the BD, the ICD providing a service in the environment, the representation rendered on the given mobile communication device including a representation of the ICD, wherein the representation of the IDS rendered on the given mobile communication device includes a graphical user interface (GUI) for controlling the ICD and, responsive to a command received by the GUI for controlling the ICD, the mediation engine is further configured to generate an updated representation and an updated rendering that reflects a change to the ICD arising from receipt of the command. Applicant submits that this step cannot be practically performed in the human mind and is therefore not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The elements of ICD, BD, and GUI are considered additional elements and should be analyzed under step 2A prong 2 and not prong 1 where an abstract idea grouping is identified. The bulk of the claims merely describe how the information is received with general purpose computers (i.e. triggering device/broadcasting device) that are used as tools to carry out the abstract idea. Receiving, selecting, and generating a representation are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. It is clear that the claims belong into the abstract idea grouping of a mental process (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The claims also deal with tracking consumers in a retail environment (See para 0164) and advertisements with respect to sales (See para 0244). This makes the claimed invention fall under the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people/business activities/advertising).
Applicant argues on page 10
Although the Examiner has not specified which subcategory the present claims allegedly fall in, Applicant presumes that the Examiner is referring to the subcategory of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Applicant submits that the claimed system does not manage behavior or interpersonal relationships. Rather, it addresses the technical challenge of integrating data from various sources to generate a dynamic representation of a physical environment, facilitating user interaction with connected devices.
The claims deal with tracking consumers in a retail environment (See para 0164) and advertisements with respect to sales (See para 0244). In addition, the dependent claim also recite physical items in an environment. These relate to physical items in a retail store (See para 0184). The dependent claims also recite user preferences, user movement information, and historical purchase/interest data. This makes the claimed invention fall under the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people/business activities/advertising).
Drawings Objections
The drawings are objected to because figures 5, 7, 11, 15, 16-20, and 21-23 are missing numerical labeling. For example, figure 5 has no numerical labeling for the EDS, ME, and PE. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 18-28 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), Claims 18-28 and 32-34 are directed to a system.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 18-28 and 32-34 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 18 recites
…for receiving…a plurality of environmental data sets (EDSs) that each include information relating to the environment… selecting data from each of the plurality of EDSs; (ii) generating a representation of the environment by combining the selecting data; and (iii) generating a rendering of the representation…
and, responsive to a command…to generate an updated representation and an updated rendering that reflects a change...
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of receiving data, selecting data, and generating data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of triggering device and broadcasting device, the claims language encompasses simply receiving environmental data, generating a representation with respect to the data, generating a rendering of the representation, and generating an updated rendering with respect to a command. These claim limitations are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. The bulk of the claims merely describe how the information is received with general purpose computers (i.e. triggering device/broadcasting device) that are used as tools to carry out the abstract idea.
The claims also deal with tracking consumers in a retail environment (See para 0164) and advertisements with respect to sales (See para 0244). This makes the claimed invention fall under the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people/business activities/advertising). The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of triggered device, broadcasting device, mobile communications device, mediation engine, mobile, publishing engine, preference broker, internet connected device, and graphical user interface. These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe what the triggered device is. In addition, the dependent claims further describe what the data consists of such as physical items.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
System, Triggering device, broadcasting device, mobile, mobile communications device of the user, mediation engine
Claim 20 recites publishing engine
Claim 27 recites preference broker
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic, the Applicant specification states a general-purpose computer as seen in para 0394 .
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose computer as seen in para 0394. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 18-28 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Cooper (US20150220948A1) Discloses a system, method, and apparatus for providing on-site election services.
Klaczkow (US20160358195A1) Discloses a method and system to build a spatial map for a defined location based on the data collected from moving devices to define, measure and categorize the space in any consumer-based environment and optimize the location of goods in the defined area.
Jenkins (11653174) Discloses a system and a method to generate a recommendation on a mobile device. The system and the method may use a time, a location, a venue and/or an event to generate the recommendation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625