DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 7/7/26 wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 12 and 20 recite a system and a computer readable device, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
receiving, within a cloud-based platform and from a mobile device, an identification and a geographic location of the mobile device and image data, wherein the image data includes an image of a physical object and object information associated with the physical object, the object information comprising at least one of: depth of field data, a position of the physical object relative to another physical object, or three-dimensional contour information;
determining, within the cloud-based platform, that the location of the mobile device is within a virtual geo-fence associated with a digital record;
identifying, within the cloud-based platform, that the physical object is selected by a user of the mobile device, wherein the physical object corresponds to an inventory item and one or more augmented objects stored in the digital record, and wherein the identifying is performed by:
computing, from the image data, a relative proximity of the mobile device to the physical object, based on a spatial relationship represented in the image data;
determining that the relative proximity is within a threshold range; and
verifying that the physical object corresponds to the inventory item by performing, within the cloud-based platform, an image comparison between the image of the physical object and a previous image previously stored in the digital record, wherein the image comparison uses the object information to compare at least one spatial characteristic of the physical object represented in the image data with a corresponding spatial characteristic represented in the previous image;
retrieving, within the cloud-based platform, the one or more augmented objects, based on the relative proximity and the location of the mobile device;
transmitting, from the cloud-based platform to a user interface (UI) of the mobile device, based on the identifying that the physical object is selected, the one or more augmented objects comprising at least a description of the inventory item;
receiving, within the cloud-based platform and from the mobile device, a request for in-person assistance with the inventory item;
generating user information, within the cloud-based platform, based on the identification of the mobile device, the location of the mobile device, and the inventory item of the digital record; and
transmitting, from the cloud-based platform to a computer-device corresponding to the geo-fence, the request for in-person assistance along with the user information
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Specification indicates that the invention is directed to, during a user’s shopping experience, requesting, in person sales assistance from on-premises salespersons. Specification ¶15. This indicates that the invention is directed to sales activities, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of
Claims 1, 12, and 20: a mobile device, a cloud-based platform, a user interface (UI), a computer-device corresponding to the geo-fence
Claim 12 additionally includes: a memory; and one or more processors
Claim 20 additionally includes: a non-transitory computer-readable device
The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the claimed steps identified above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4, 7, 9, 10, 15, 18, and 19 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 12 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 12, however none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 13, 14 further define the additional element of an augmented reality (AR) interface. The interface is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claims 5, 6, 16, 17 further define the additional element of the cloud-based platform as a vehicle dealer platform or a vehicle dealer lead generation system. The platform/system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claim 8 further defines the additional element of the mobile device as being any of: a smartphone, tablet, or wearable computer. The device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to claims 1-20.
The most closely applicable prior art of record is Breed et al. (US 20110225047). Breed discloses a system for generating and utilizing sales leads and related information (abstract).
Henry (US 20150317713) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Henry discloses a similar system for vehicle information delivery and management (abstract).
Laracey et al. (US 20170098210) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Laracey discloses a similar system for geo-fencing an area corresponding to a merchant’s location where a user may visit to purchase an item (abstract).
Pettyjohn et al. (US 20150170256) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Pettyjohn discloses a similar system for using augmented reality in a retail environment (abstract).
Elliott et al. (US 20200293778) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Elliott discloses a similar system for an object recognition process (abstract).
The prior art of record neither anticipates not fairly and reasonable teach a computer-based method comprising:
receiving, within a cloud-based platform and from a mobile device, an identification and a geographic location of the mobile device and image data, wherein the image data includes an image of a physical object and object information associated with the physical object, the object information comprising at least one of: depth of field data, a position of the physical object relative to another physical object, or three-dimensional contour information;
determining, within the cloud-based platform, that the location of the mobile device is within a virtual geo-fence associated with a digital record;
identifying, within the cloud-based platform, that the physical object is selected by a user of the mobile device, wherein the physical object corresponds to an inventory item and one or more augmented objects stored in the digital record, and wherein the identifying is performed by:
computing, from the image data, a relative proximity of the mobile device to the physical object, based on a spatial relationship represented in the image data;
determining that the relative proximity is within a threshold range; and
verifying that the physical object corresponds to the inventory item by performing, within the cloud-based platform, an image comparison between the image of the physical object and a previous image previously stored in the digital record, wherein the image comparison uses the object information to compare at least one spatial characteristic of the physical object represented in the image data with a corresponding spatial characteristic represented in the previous image;
retrieving, within the cloud-based platform, the one or more augmented objects, based on the relative proximity and the location of the mobile device;
transmitting, from the cloud-based platform to a user interface (UI) of the mobile device, based on the identifying that the physical object is selected, the one or more augmented objects comprising at least a description of the inventory item;
receiving, within the cloud-based platform and from the mobile device, a request for in-person assistance with the inventory item;
generating user information, within the cloud-based platform, based on the identification of the mobile device, the location of the mobile device, and the inventory item of the digital record; and
transmitting, from the cloud-based platform to a computer-device corresponding to the geo-fence, the request for in-person assistance along with the user information.
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are not found in the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant for pointing out the support for the amendments.
Summary of the Interview
Examiner has no comment on Applicant’s summary.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claim is directed to “how a computer-based mobile/cloud system technically identifies, confirms, and retrieves the correct digital record for a real-world object, not merely to a business interaction.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The request for assistance is the culmination of the user’s interactions with an inventory item that is for sale. The entirety of the claim is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Applicant argues that the focus of claim 1 is a “specific improvement in how computer systems process image data, spatial data, and location data to identify and verify a physical object in a real-world environment.” Remarks 10. Examiner believes Applicant is arguing that the claims are integrated into a practical application. In this case, there must be a specific technical improvement. When it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. Applicant specifically argues that the object-matching reliability is improved by the invention. Remarks 11. However, the claim limitation in question merely requires comparison of an image of the physical object with a recorded digital image using distance. Such a comparison merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome. No specific technical details are provided or required. Rather, the computer is merely being used as a tool. There is no improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Examiner notes that Applicant refers to several features of the Specification which are not in the claim. These features cannot be used as technical improvements. The Specification is used to identify whether the features claimed provide technical improvements.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites additional elements that impose a particular technological implementation, including the use of a geo-fence, performing the proximity-threshold-verification sequence within a cloud-based platform, retrieving the objects from a digital record, and transmitting the request to a computer device. Remarks 12. Applicant argues that these features are not a generic computer recited at a high level of generality. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons recited in the above rejection and notes that the rejection identifies clearly which elements are considered additional elements and which claim limitations are considered part of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Applicant argues that the ordered combination of the claimed steps is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Remarks 13. Applicant further argues that claim 1 addresses a technological problem of “accurately correlating a real-world object with a digital record” through the recited claim limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Specification indicates that it is directed to empowering the customer to control initiation of engagement with a salesperson on a dealership lot. Specification ¶15. An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). For the reasons provided in the rejection above, the claims are considered mere instructions to apply an exception.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
This rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendments; therefore, these arguments are moot.
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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights