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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18 and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnerstall US 20180121913, in view of Grigera US 9230134, Sinha US 20190205851 and Zemek WO2023152818.
Unnerstall discloses generating a set of permissions for a user (Para. 65, Fig. 5; User is allowed to spend payment card in a specific zone), but fails to disclose as metadata associated with a user profile, wherein the set comprises time-based permissions. However, Girgera discloses a privacy setting with time-based permission (Grigera, “In some implementations, there may be other types of consents or permissions, such as per-use permissions, conditional permissions, time-based permissions, etc. For example, information 144 (FIG. 1), which identifies consent types 215, 225, and 235 may include a per-user consent (not shown), which means the user of application 120 may be asked for permission again each time a certain event occurs (e.g., each time the user's first name is shared with another new user). Information 144 may include a conditional permission (not shown), which means the consent is valid only if one or more conditions are met. Information 144 may include a time-based permission, which means the permission is only valid within one or more time periods. One or more of the time periods may be defined by the app developer 110 or user of application 120”).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Unnerstall with the metadata with time-based permissions for identification. Doing so allows for automated security with tighter restrictions for time permitted use and reduced administrative burden by allowing the user instant access across all related files.
assigning the generated set of permissions to a payment account (Para. 24-25; User is assigned an account identifier; Para. 47, “Database 116 also store cardholder data relating to zone creation and organization. In particular, database 116 stores zones created by cardholders, wherein each zone is associated with one or more account identifiers, such as payment card numbers, of a cardholder. In some embodiments, database 116 stores data necessary to host the customized website and/or the service app accessible by cardholders for zone creation and organization”);
and displaying, via an augmented reality (AR)-based user-interface, a virtual boundary associated with one or more real-world locations for which the user is authorized to use the payment account to purchase a tangible item (Para. 18, Zone boundary established that is virtual; Fig. 7, Including zone data 722, location data 724, and map data 726),
and wherein a location of the virtual boundary is determined using an indoor positioning system (Para. 27, geolocation determined by GPS, and GPS coordinates; Para. 37, GPS sensors; Para. 45, Geopositioning network).
Unnerstall fails to disclose wherein the virtual boundary is a super-imposed animation of a virtual fence around the one or more real-world locations. However, Sinha discloses a virtual boundary (Fig. 4, 410) around a specific home location where the user can purchase specific listed items that are imposed in the users boundary specified home (Fig. 4, Items such as 420, 415, in real living room 450, with cart shown in 470).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Unnerstall with the boundary specified real living room to purchase displayed items. Doing so allows the user to imagine specific items in a displayed region to increase the likelihood of purchase, and increase corporate profits for the selling company, while also increasing efficiency for the user to purchase items without having to go to the store to make the purchase.
Unnerstall fails to disclose wherein the virtual boundary is displayed in a first color for items authorized under the set of permissions and in a second color for items denied under the set of permissions. However, Zemek discloses a display area for an output device, whereby the user is designated to drive in certain areas based on the color designation of the superimposed augmented reality display, and not allowed to drive in other areas based on the color displayed (Zemak, “By displaying an AR (Augmented Reality) guide in the display area visible through the windshield from the driver's seat of the vehicle, the AR guide is superimposed on the real world, making it easier for the user to recognize important information while driving. A head-up display device for displaying is known (Patent Document 1). The display unit 21 is connected to the controller 100 and has a display area 23 that transmits the surroundings of the vehicle so that it can be viewed from the driver's seat of the vehicle or other seats of the vehicle. An AR (Augmented Reality) guide (image) generated by the controller 100 is displayed in the display area 23 . Therefore, the AR guide is displayed in the display area 23 so as to be superimposed on the scenery around the vehicle. In the above example, the AR guide generated by the image generation unit 140 is painted in a constant color for each zone, and the color of the AR guide changes discontinuously on one side and the other on either side of the zone boundary. described as a thing. Alternatively, the AR guide may be set such that the color continuously changes within the zone, and the color continuously changes on one side and the other across the boundary of the zone. That is, the color of the AR guide may be represented by gradation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Unnerstall with the augmented-reality based display guide with changing color zones of Zemak. Doing so allows the user to be better informed around purchasing decisions, and creates greater cost effectiveness for the customer when purchasing within a designated zone on the interface.
Regarding claim 3, 10, and 17, modified Unerstall discloses further comprising: in response to the user being within a preconfigured geo-fence, activating the payment account (Unnerstall, Fig. 4, payment activated as long as within proper approved region);
but fails to disclose and in response to the user being outside the preconfigured geo-fence, deactivating the payment account.
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Unnerstall to deactivate payment account when the user is outside a pre-configured geo-fence, since mere reversal of parts has been held to not hold patentable weight (In reGazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16 and 19 are considered allowable for the following reasons: Claims 2, 9 and 16 recite a generated set of permissions that comprises both a contextual and location-based permission for utilization of the payment account. Claims 5, 12, and 19 where the virtual boundary is displayed in a green color when the one or more locations are associated with locations or items for which the user is authorized to purchase based on the set of permissions, and wherein the virtual boundary is displayed in a red color when the one or more locations are associated with locations or items for which the user is not authorized to purchase based on the set of permissions. Claims 7 and 14 recite where the set of permissions are further selected
from a group consisting of one or more geographic locations, one or more retailers, one or more
manufacturers, a time of day, a period of time, one or more categories of items, or one or more
types of items.
Conclusion
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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693