DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 10 and 14 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-13, and 15-18 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-13, and 15-18 are rejected, grounds follow.
THIS OFFICE ACTION IS FINAL, see additional information at the conclusion of this action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s Arguments include references to several references which appear to relate to built software applications that were first publicly available prior to the original priority date of the application and therefore appear to be materially relevant to patentability, however these references have not been made of record. 37 CFR 1.56 requires individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application to disclose information material to patentability. “The duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability is deemed to be satisfied if all information known to be material to patentability of any claim issued in a patent was cited by the Office or submitted to the Office in the manner prescribed by §§ 1.97(b) -(d) and 1.98. However, no patent will be granted on an application in connection with which fraud on the Office was practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional misconduct.” (37 CFR 1.56) Examiner requests applicant either explain why this information is not material to patentability or cure this deficiency by submitting the information related to the built applications that were cited in the arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 February 2026, see Remarks page 5 et seq. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Karaoguz et al., US Pg-Pub 2004/0117827 (as applied to original claim 2) does not teach the amended limitation “receiving an opt-in for the user account”, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the opt-in must be an affirmative selection regarding advertisements generally; and not, variously, an implied opt-in by not affirmatively excluding certain kinds of advertisements, or that creation of the account on the service itself could not constitute the opt-in, or that the opt-in could be for services other than exclusively advertising for which advertising is only part of the service, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case it is examiner’s position that the affirmative action of the user in Karaoguz to filter certain kinds of advertisement constitutes an opt-in to receive other kinds of advertisements, and therefore reads on the claim limitation at issue.
Applicant further argues that none of the references of record teach the limitations “displaying third-party content for at least a predetermined minimum time” and “applying a credit to the user account after displaying the third-party content”, which are limitations from original claims 3 and 5; however it is examiner’s position that these limitations are expressly taught by the references of Carignani, US Pg-Pub 2002/0143646 (which credits a portion of advertising revenue to the customer, see [0025] following display of a predetermined amount of advertisement viewed [0013].) or alternatively Wodka, et al., US Pg-Pub 2013/0155076 (which applies a predetermined reduction in sale price (i.e. extending a credit) to a user following viewing of advertisements on a full page display of the user device for a specified period of time, see [0057]). Which were cited in the original non-final office action for these limitations in claims 3 and 5 and which do not appear to have been addressed by Applicant’s argument beyond a general allegation that overall body of prior art fails to teach these references.
Applicant further argues that none of the references of record teach “registering third-party content to a remote computing device by an owner of the laundry appliance” and “retrieving the third-party content from the remote computing device” as required by amended claim 9, alleging “the cited prior art references do not disclose registering third-party content to a remote computing device by an owner of the laundry appliance” (see remarks page 8); which are limitations from original claim 14. It is examiners position that these limitations are taught by Kodama et al., US Pg-Pub 2022/0235509 as applied to the rejection of original claim 14. Kodama teaches or fairly suggests third party advertisements (see fig. 1 5-1, to 5-m) hosted on a dedicated server (fig. 1, server 3) which is managed by laundromat facility service provider G who operates the store T (coin-operated laundry) – i.e. the proprietor of the laundromat.) While the phrase “registered” is not used ipsissimis verbis by Kodama, identity of terminology is not required. (In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).) and to the extent that the service provider G who is the operator of the store T manages the server on which the content is hosted, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have understood that the service provider G determines what content is on the server, e.g. is the one to ‘register’ that content to the server.
For these reasons applicants argument is unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belveal et al., US Pg-Pub 2017/0085390 in view of Karaoguz et al., US Pg-Pub 2004/0117827, in view of Carignani, US Pg-Pub 2002/0143636 alternatively further in view of Wodka et al., US Pg-Pub 2013/0155076.
Regarding Claim 1, Belveal teaches:
A method (see figs. 6-9B) of operating a laundry appliance, (see fig. 1) the method comprising: receiving an access request for the laundry appliance (fig. 7, “Send reservation request to reserve laundry machine(s) in laundromat” 704) from a remote user interface device (fig. 7, left-column, User device (e.g. mobile device 104”) associated with a user account; (see fig. 6 “user login to customer application” 602 and “credential(s)” 604).
reserving the laundry appliance for the user account in response to the access request; (Fig 7 “Send reservation information indicating reservation of laundry machine(s)” 718)
activating the laundry appliance after reserving the laundry appliance, (see fig. 9A, “User has reservation?” con’t on fig. 9B with “Send control signal to alter status indicator and enable use of laundry machine” 930) whereby the laundry appliance performs a laundry treatment operation; (see [0119] “The microcontroller 302 may also send one or more signals to the control module(s) 306 to alter (936) the operational state of the laundry machine 112 and to enable its use for doing laundry.”)
displaying third-party content on the remote user interface device during the laundry treatment operation, ([0122] “In some implementations, the customer application 310 may be configured to present (944) advertisements, surveys, games, or other content via the UI of the customer application 310 while the laundry cycle is in progress.”)
wherein the access request is received via a laundry app on the remote user interface device ([0035] “the management server device(s) may communicate information to a user device, and such information may be presented within a customer application (e.g., a mobile app) executing on the user device.”)
and the third-party content is displayed in the laundry app. ([0122] “In some implementations, the customer application 310 may be configured to present (944) advertisements, surveys, games, or other content via the UI of the customer application 310 while the laundry cycle is in progress.”)
Belveal differs from the claimed invention in that:
Belveal does not appear to clearly articulate: receiving an opt-in for the user account; nor displaying the third party content after receiving the opt-in;
Belveal does not appear to clearly articulate: displaying the third-party content for at least a predetermined minimum time; and applying a credit to the user account after displaying the third-party content.
However, Karaoguz teaches a third-party advertising service (see fig. 1, “third party media provider” 103 and commercial/advertisement 111”) which receives opt-ins for the user ([0059] “A user may also be provided with a capability to filter out certain types of commercials or advertisements”) prior to displaying the third-party content. ([0059] “For example, a user having a preference for foreign cars, may not want to view foreign car commercials of Korean cars.”)
Karaoguz is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal to include receiving user opt-ins based on the type of advertisements, as suggested by Karaoguz.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make these modifications in order to enable users with the capability to filter out advertisements which do not interest them, as suggested by Karaoguz ([0059] “A user may also be provided with a capability to filter out certain types of commercials or advertisements from being pushed to a particular media processing system such as media processing system 101, independent of a particular user profile. For example, a user having a preference for foreign cars, may not want to view foreign car commercials of Korean cars.”)
And Carignani teaches a system (see fig. 2) which reduces the purchase price of a product or service by obtaining revenue from displaying a predetermined amount of advertisements (Carignani [0013] “the price of the product offered for sale is reduced by an amount proportional to an amount of advertisements viewed by the at least one user and purchasing the product offered for sale from the web page at a price reduced by a predetermined amount based upon the amount of advertisements viewed.”) and sharing a portion of that revenue with the user ([0025] “advertising revenue may be generated where a portion of that revenue may be applied to the purchase price of a selected product thereby decreasing the purchase price of the selected product for the consumer.”)
Carignani is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal to include reducing the price of the laundry service by a portion of the advertising revenue generated by serving the user advertisements, as suggested by Carignani.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate advertising profit, as suggested by Carignani ([0024] “The remainder of the advertising fee may be retained by the vendor, for example, as profit.”)
Should applicant feel that Carignani does not adequately teach the limitation “displaying the advertisement for a specified period of time”; in the interest of compact prosecution Claims 5 and 13 are alternatively further rejected in view of Wodka, which teaches displaying the advertisement for a specified period of time before offering the user the price reduction. ([0057] “a 10% reduction from the purchase price of the particular product if a viewer of the digital advertisement (i.e., the user of the device 14 on which the advertisement is shown) fulfils certain criteria (e.g., the user permits the digital advertisement to be shown on the full display 16 of one or more of the user's devices 14 for a specific period of time).”)
Wodka is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal in view of Carignani to include displaying the advertisements for a specified period of time, as suggested by Wodka.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure the user fulfills certain criteria before receiving the account credit, as suggested by Wodka. ([0057] “(i.e., a 10% reduction from the purchase price of the particular product if a viewer of the digital advertisement… fulfils certain criteria (e.g., the user permits the digital advertisement to be shown on the full display 16 of one or more of the user's devices 14 for a specific period of time).”)
Regarding Claims 4 Belveal in view of Karaoguz, in view of Carignani, alternatively further in view of Wodka teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1;
Belveal further teaches:
wherein displaying the third-party content comprises displaying the third-party content while the laundry app is in foreground mode on the remote user interface device. ([0074] “the customer application 310 may present a first set of UIs related to laundry loads in progress, additional service(s) that may be requested, available laundry machine(s) 112, games, advertisements, and surveys to pass the time, or other information.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Belveal in view of Karaoguz, in view of Carignani, alternatively further in view of Wodka teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1;
Belveal further teaches:
wherein the third-party content comprises a plurality of advertisements, ([0122] “In some implementations, the customer application 310 may be configured to present (944) advertisements, surveys, games, or other content via the UI of the customer application 310 while the laundry cycle is in progress.” Nb. plurality has been interpreted as requiring at least two, e.g. plural advertisements.)
And Carignani further teaches:
further comprising applying a credit to the user account ([0025] “The computer may also be programmed to selectively lower the available purchase price of the pre-selected product depending upon a predetermined value set for a predetermined amount of advertisements viewed.”) for each of the one or more advertisements displayed for at least the predetermined minimum time after displaying the third-party content. (Carignani [0013] “the price of the product offered for sale is reduced by an amount proportional to an amount of advertisements viewed by the at least one user and purchasing the product offered for sale from the web page at a price reduced by a predetermined amount based upon the amount of advertisements viewed.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal to include reducing the price of the laundry service by a portion of the advertising revenue generated by serving the user advertisements, as suggested by Carignani.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate advertising profit, as suggested by Carignani ([0024] “The remainder of the advertising fee may be retained by the vendor, for example, as profit.”)
Should applicant feel that Carignani does not adequately teach the limitation regarding “displaying the advertisements for a predetermined minimum time”; in the interest of compact prosecution Claims 7 and 15 are alternatively further rejected in view of Wodka, which teaches displaying the advertisement for a specified period of time before offering the user the price reduction. ([0057] “a 10% reduction from the purchase price of the particular product if a viewer of the digital advertisement (i.e., the user of the device 14 on which the advertisement is shown) fulfils certain criteria (e.g., the user permits the digital advertisement to be shown on the full display 16 of one or more of the user's devices 14 for a specific period of time).”)
Wodka is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal in view of Carignani to include displaying the advertisements for a specified period of time, as suggested by Wodka.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure the user fulfills certain criteria before receiving the account credit, as suggested by Wodka. ([0057] “(i.e., a 10% reduction from the purchase price of the particular product if a viewer of the digital advertisement… fulfils certain criteria (e.g., the user permits the digital advertisement to be shown on the full display 16 of one or more of the user's devices 14 for a specific period of time).”)
Regarding Claim 8, Belveal in view of Karaoguz, in view of Carignani, alternatively further in view of Wodka teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1;
Carignani further teaches:
receiving compensation from a provider of the third-party content, (Carignani [0013] “the price of the product offered for sale is reduced by an amount proportional to an amount of advertisements viewed by the at least one user and purchasing the product offered for sale from the web page at a price reduced by a predetermined amount based upon the amount of advertisements viewed.”) and distributing portions of the compensation to an owner of the laundry appliance and to the user account. ([0025] “advertising revenue may be generated where a portion of that revenue may be applied to the purchase price of a selected product thereby decreasing the purchase price of the selected product for the consumer.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal to include reducing the price of the laundry service by a portion of the advertising revenue generated by serving the user advertisements, as suggested by Carignani.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate advertising profit, as suggested by Carignani ([0024] “The remainder of the advertising fee may be retained by the vendor, for example, as profit.”)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belveal, Karaoguz, and Carignani, alternatively further Wodka, in view of Kodama et al., US Pg-Pub 2022/0235509.
Regarding Claim 6, Belveal in view of Karaoguz, in view of Carignani, alternatively further in view of Wodka teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1;
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
None of the references clearly articulate: registering the third-party content to a remote computing device by an owner of the laundry appliance, wherein displaying the third-party content comprises retrieving the third-party content from the remote computing device.
However, Kodama teaches a laundry treatment service premises ( see fig. 1) including serving advertisements (see bottom center of figure 1, “Dedicated app” Put advertisement”) where the advertisements are from third parties (see fig. 1, M1-Mm and 5-1 to 5-m, nearby commercial facilities) which are hosted on a dedicated server (fig. 1 server 3), which is managed by the facility service provider ([0037] “Further, the service provider G manages the server 3.”; see [0024] “[0024] The service provider G is a person who operates a store T of the so-called coin laundry (hereinafter, simply referred to as a “store T”).
Kodama is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal to include registering the advertisements on a remote server and retrieving the advertisements from the server for display on the user’s device, as suggested by Kodama.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order provide dedicated services to serving the application for the user’s application on their mobile terminal, as suggested by Kodama. ([0037] “Further, the service provider G manages the server 3. The server 3 makes various kinds of settings (for example, settings of fees) in the present service, and performs operation check and remote operation of the information station 1 and the washing machine 2, management and analysis of sales for each store T, and support for downloading of sales analysis results. Further, the server 3 provides the dedicated app and the dedicated site to the user terminal 4 and supports settlement using a QR code (registered trademark), or the like.”)
Claim(s) 9, 12, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belveal in view of Karaoguz, further in view of Kodama.
Regarding Claim 9, Belveal teaches:
A method of operating a laundry appliance, the method comprising: activating the laundry appliance, (see fig. 9A, “User has reservation?” con’t on fig. 9B with “Send control signal to alter status indicator and enable use of laundry machine” 930) whereby the laundry appliance performs a laundry treatment operation, (see [0119] “The microcontroller 302 may also send one or more signals to the control module(s) 306 to alter (936) the operational state of the laundry machine 112 and to enable its use for doing laundry.”) in response to a command from a remote user interface device (fig. 7, left-column, User device (e.g. mobile device 104”) in communication with the laundry appliance; (see fig. 7).
displaying the third-party content on the remote user interface device during the laundry treatment operation; ([0122] “In some implementations, the customer application 310 may be configured to present (944) advertisements, surveys, games, or other content via the UI of the customer application 310 while the laundry cycle is in progress.”)
wherein the command is received via a laundry app on the remote user interface device ([0035] “the management server device(s) may communicate information to a user device, and such information may be presented within a customer application (e.g., a mobile app) executing on the user device.”)
and the third-party content is displayed in the laundry app ([0122] “In some implementations, the customer application 310 may be configured to present (944) advertisements, surveys, games, or other content via the UI of the customer application 310 while the laundry cycle is in progress.”)
Belveal differs from the claimed invention in that:
Belveal does not appear to clearly articulate: receiving an opt-in for a user account from the remote user interface device; nor displaying the third party-content after receiving the opt-in
Nor does Belveal appear to clearly articulate: registering third-party content to a remote computing device by an owner of the laundry appliance; nor retrieving the third-party content from the remote computing device.
However, Karaoguz teaches a third-party advertising service (see fig. 1, “third party media provider” 103 and commercial/advertisement 111”) which receives opt-ins for the user ([0059] “A user may also be provided with a capability to filter out certain types of commercials or advertisements”) prior to displaying the third-party content. ([0059] “For example, a user having a preference for foreign cars, may not want to view foreign car commercials of Korean cars.”)
Karaoguz is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal to include receiving user opt-ins based on the type of advertisements, as suggested by Karaoguz.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make these modifications in order to enable users with the capability to filter out advertisements which do not interest them, as suggested by Karaoguz ([0059] “A user may also be provided with a capability to filter out certain types of commercials or advertisements from being pushed to a particular media processing system such as media processing system 101, independent of a particular user profile. For example, a user having a preference for foreign cars, may not want to view foreign car commercials of Korean cars.”)
And Kodama teaches a laundry treatment service premises ( see fig. 1) including serving advertisements (see bottom center of figure 1, “Dedicated app” Put advertisement”) where the advertisements are from third parties (see fig. 1, M1-Mm and 5-1 to 5-m, nearby commercial facilities) which are hosted on a dedicated server (fig. 1 server 3), which is managed by the facility service provider ([0037] “Further, the service provider G manages the server 3.”; see [0024] “[0024] The service provider G is a person who operates a store T of the so-called coin laundry (hereinafter, simply referred to as a “store T”).
Kodama is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal to include registering the advertisements on a remote server and retrieving the advertisements from the server for display on the user’s device, as suggested by Kodama.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order provide dedicated services to serving the application for the user’s application on their mobile terminal, as suggested by Kodama. ([0037] “Further, the service provider G manages the server 3. The server 3 makes various kinds of settings (for example, settings of fees) in the present service, and performs operation check and remote operation of the information station 1 and the washing machine 2, management and analysis of sales for each store T, and support for downloading of sales analysis results. Further, the server 3 provides the dedicated app and the dedicated site to the user terminal 4 and supports settlement using a QR code (registered trademark), or the like.”)
Regarding Claim 12, Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 9,
Belveal further teaches:
wherein displaying the third-party content comprises displaying the third-party content while the laundry app is in foreground mode on the remote user interface device. ([0074] “the customer application 310 may present a first set of UIs related to laundry loads in progress, additional service(s) that may be requested, available laundry machine(s) 112, games, advertisements, and surveys to pass the time, or other information.”)
Regarding Claim 17, Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 9,
Belveal further teaches:
wherein the command is an activation command. (see fig. 9A, “User has reservation?” con’t on fig. 9B with “Send control signal to alter status indicator and enable use of laundry machine” 930)
Regarding Claim 18, Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 9,
Belveal further teaches:
wherein the command is a reservation for the user account, (fig. 7, “Send reservation request to reserve laundry machine(s) in laundromat” 704)
further comprising reserving the laundry appliance for the user account in response to the command, (Fig 7 “Send reservation information indicating reservation of laundry machine(s)” 718)
wherein activating the laundry appliance comprises activating the laundry appliance after reserving the laundry appliance. (see fig. 9A, “User has reservation?” con’t on fig. 9B with “Send control signal to alter status indicator and enable use of laundry machine” 930)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama, further in view of Carignani.
Regarding Claim 11, Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 9,
Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama differs from the claimed invention in that:
The references do not appear to clearly articulate: applying a credit to the user account after displaying the third party content.
However, Carignani teaches a system (see fig. 2) which reduces the purchase price of a product or service by obtaining revenue from advertisements (Carignani [0013] “the price of the product offered for sale is reduced by an amount proportional to an amount of advertisements viewed by the at least one user and purchasing the product offered for sale from the web page at a price reduced by a predetermined amount based upon the amount of advertisements viewed.”) and sharing a portion of that revenue with the user ([0025] “advertising revenue may be generated where a portion of that revenue may be applied to the purchase price of a selected product thereby decreasing the purchase price of the selected product for the consumer.”)
Carignani is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal to include reducing the price of the laundry service by a portion of the advertising revenue generated by serving the user advertisements, as suggested by Carignani.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate advertising profit, as suggested by Carignani ([0024] “The remainder of the advertising fee may be retained by the vendor, for example, as profit.”)
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama, further in view of Carignani alternatively Wodka.
Regarding Claim 13, Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 9,
Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama differs from the claimed invention in that:
None of the references appear to clearly articulate: wherein displaying the third-party content comprises displaying the third-party content for at least a predetermined minimum time.
However, Carignani teaches a system (see fig. 2) which reduces the purchase price of a product or service by obtaining revenue from displaying a predetermined amount of advertisements (Carignani [0013] “the price of the product offered for sale is reduced by an amount proportional to an amount of advertisements viewed by the at least one user and purchasing the product offered for sale from the web page at a price reduced by a predetermined amount based upon the amount of advertisements viewed.”) and sharing a portion of that revenue with the user ([0025] “advertising revenue may be generated where a portion of that revenue may be applied to the purchase price of a selected product thereby decreasing the purchase price of the selected product for the consumer.”)
Carignani is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal to include reducing the price of the laundry service by a portion of the advertising revenue generated by serving the user advertisements, as suggested by Carignani.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate advertising profit, as suggested by Carignani ([0024] “The remainder of the advertising fee may be retained by the vendor, for example, as profit.”)
Should applicant feel that Carignani does not adequately teach the limitation; in the interest of compact prosecution Claims 5 and 13 are alternatively further rejected in view of Wodka, which teaches displaying the advertisement for a specified period of time before offering the user the price reduction. ([0057] “a 10% reduction from the purchase price of the particular product if a viewer of the digital advertisement (i.e., the user of the device 14 on which the advertisement is shown) fulfils certain criteria (e.g., the user permits the digital advertisement to be shown on the full display 16 of one or more of the user's devices 14 for a specific period of time).”)
Wodka is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal in view of Carignani to include displaying the advertisements for a specified period of time, as suggested by Wodka.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure the user fulfills certain criteria before receiving the account credit, as suggested by Wodka. ([0057] “(i.e., a 10% reduction from the purchase price of the particular product if a viewer of the digital advertisement… fulfils certain criteria (e.g., the user permits the digital advertisement to be shown on the full display 16 of one or more of the user's devices 14 for a specific period of time).”)
Regarding Claim 15, Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 9,
Belveal further teaches:
wherein the third-party content comprises a plurality of advertisements, ([0122] “In some implementations, the customer application 310 may be configured to present (944) advertisements, surveys, games, or other content via the UI of the customer application 310 while the laundry cycle is in progress.” Nb. plurality has been interpreted as requiring at least two, e.g. plural advertisements.)
Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama differs from the claimed invention in that:
the references not appear to clearly articulate: wherein displaying the third-party content comprises displaying one or more of the plurality of advertisements for at least a predetermined minimum time,
Nor do the references appear to clearly articulate: further comprising applying a credit to the user account for each of the one or more advertisements displayed for at least the predetermined minimum time after displaying the third-party content.
However, Carignani teaches a system (see fig. 2) which reduces the purchase price of a product or service by obtaining revenue from advertisements (Carignani [0013] “the price of the product offered for sale is reduced by an amount proportional to an amount of advertisements viewed by the at least one user and purchasing the product offered for sale from the web page at a price reduced by a predetermined amount based upon the amount of advertisements viewed.”) and sharing a portion of that revenue with the user ([0025] “advertising revenue may be generated where a portion of that revenue may be applied to the purchase price of a selected product thereby decreasing the purchase price of the selected product for the consumer.”) based on the user viewing a predetermined amount of said advertisements ([0025] “The computer may also be programmed to selectively lower the available purchase price of the pre-selected product depending upon a predetermined value set for a predetermined amount of advertisements viewed.”)
Carignani is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal to include reducing the price of the laundry service by a portion of the advertising revenue generated by serving the user advertisements, as suggested by Carignani.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate advertising profit, as suggested by Carignani ([0024] “The remainder of the advertising fee may be retained by the vendor, for example, as profit.”)
Should applicant feel that Carignani does not adequately teach the limitation regarding “displaying the advertisements for a predetermined minimum time”; in the interest of compact prosecution Claims 7 and 15 are alternatively further rejected in view of Wodka, which teaches displaying the advertisement for a specified period of time before offering the user the price reduction. ([0057] “a 10% reduction from the purchase price of the particular product if a viewer of the digital advertisement (i.e., the user of the device 14 on which the advertisement is shown) fulfils certain criteria (e.g., the user permits the digital advertisement to be shown on the full display 16 of one or more of the user's devices 14 for a specific period of time).”)
Wodka is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal in view of Carignani to include displaying the advertisements for a specified period of time, as suggested by Wodka.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure the user fulfills certain criteria before receiving the account credit, as suggested by Wodka. ([0057] “(i.e., a 10% reduction from the purchase price of the particular product if a viewer of the digital advertisement… fulfils certain criteria (e.g., the user permits the digital advertisement to be shown on the full display 16 of one or more of the user's devices 14 for a specific period of time).”)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama further in view of Carignani.
Regarding Claim 16, Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 9
Belveal in view of Karaoguz and Kodama differs from the claimed invention in that:
The references do not appear to clearly articulate: receiving compensation from a provider of the third-party content, and distributing portions of the compensation to an owner of the laundry appliance and to the user account.
However, Carignani teaches a system (see fig. 2) which reduces the purchase price of a product or service by obtaining revenue from advertisements (Carignani [0013] “the price of the product offered for sale is reduced by an amount proportional to an amount of advertisements viewed by the at least one user and purchasing the product offered for sale from the web page at a price reduced by a predetermined amount based upon the amount of advertisements viewed.”) and sharing a portion of that revenue with the user ([0025] “advertising revenue may be generated where a portion of that revenue may be applied to the purchase price of a selected product thereby decreasing the purchase price of the selected product for the consumer.”)
Carignani is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of third-party advertisement on digital devices, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each displays advertisements to a user from a third party. Each does so by displaying said advertisement on a user’s electronic device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Belveal to include reducing the price of the laundry service by a portion of the advertising revenue generated by serving the user advertisements, as suggested by Carignani.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate advertising profit, as suggested by Carignani ([0024] “The remainder of the advertising fee may be retained by the vendor, for example, as profit.”)
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 JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119