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
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's restriction election filed11/12/2025. Group I consisting of claims 1-6 and 20 were elected. Claims 7-19 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 and 20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
Claim 1 and 20:
a business location receive module receiving, using the network interface a plurality of participating business identifiers. . .
a business time usage module receiving a plurality of business time usage goals. . .
a business usage module determining whether a first user was physically proximate. . .
a customer review module to send a request to the first user requesting that the first user. . .
Claim 2:
a calendaring module receiving scheduled events from businesses and sending instructions. . .
a business receive module receiving a number of participating business identifiers. . .
an availability receive module receiving, for each of the number of participating business identifiers. . .
a pricing module receiving a number of pricing options corresponding to the number of times. . .
an off-hour business usage module receiving a set of global positioning coordinates. . .
Claim 3:
a reporting module further reports the usage time at the participating business location. . .
Claim 4:
a revenue generation module calculating revenue based on the time the first user was present. . .
Claim 5:
A business objective module receiving a business objective to direct how the computer system presents. . .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above listed claim limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that no corresponding structure is described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation (see 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below).
Since no corresponding structure has been outlined in the specification for the aforementioned limitations which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the following interpretations have hereby been given to these limitations:
The following terms have been interpreted as one or more computer processors:
a business location receive module
a business time usage module
a business usage module
a customer review module
a calendaring module
a business receive module
an availability receive module
a pricing module
an off-hour business usage module
a reporting module
a revenue generation module
A business objective module
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for monitoring business.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 20 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “monitoring business usage, comprising: a time measurement, comprising: a business location receive , the business location receiving, using the, a plurality of participating business identifiers wherein each participating business identifier corresponds to a participating business entity of a plurality of participating business entities, and a plurality of sets of coordinates wherein each set of coordinates corresponds to one of the plurality of participating business identifiers; a business time usage , the business time usage receiving a plurality of business time usage goals wherein each of the plurality of business time usage goals corresponds to one of the plurality of participating business identifiers; a business usage , the business usage determining whether a first user was physically proximate to the one of the plurality of participating business entities for at least a length of time equal to or greater than the business time usage goal corresponding to the one of the business entities, wherein after the business usage has determined that the first user was physically proximate to the one of the plurality of participating business entities for at least a length of time equal to or greater than the business time usage goal corresponding to the one of the participating business entities, then the business usage stores, in the business usage , a designation of customer status of the one of the participating business entities for the first user and instructs a customer review to send a request to the first user requesting that the first user provide customer feedback to the about the one of the business entities” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (computer system, processor, network interface card, system, computer-readable storage medium, module, hardware, computer code, global positioning system of claim 1 and 20) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-6 and 20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (computer system, processor, network interface card, system, computer-readable storage medium, module, hardware, computer code, global positioning system of claim 1 and 20). The computer system, processor, network interface card, system, computer-readable storage medium, module, hardware, computer code, global positioning system of claim 1 and 20, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, 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.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the computer system in claims 1-6; computer-readable storage medium in claim 2; module in claims 2-6; global positioning system of claim 2; smart device in claim 2 and 6;, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stong et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20150186803 - hereinafter Stong) in view of Bell et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20140274022 - hereinafter Bell) in view of Desai et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200159375 - hereinafter Desai).
Re. claim 1, Stong teaches:
A computer system for monitoring business usage, the computer system comprising:
a processor; [Stong; ¶27, ¶29-¶30].
a network interface card, communicatively connected to the processor; [Stong; ¶27, ¶29-¶30].
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a number of modules, each module consisting of a combination of hardware and computer code that cause the processor to cause the computer system to perform a particular task, the modules comprising: [Stong; ¶27, ¶28-¶30].
a business location receive module, the business location receive module receiving, using the network interface, [Stong; ¶47]
a business usage module, the business usage module determining whether a first user was physically proximate to the one of the plurality of participating business entities for at least a length of time equal to or greater than the business time usage goal corresponding to the one of the business entities, [Stong; ¶82 shows when user is within proximity of establishment providing the ability for the user to start the checkin process such as “check in process can be initiated in any suitable manner, including, without limitation, by having the user start the check-in process through an app and/or website, by having the device prompt the user to check-in to the business (e.g., via the app and/or a webpage) when the device comes in proximity to the business, and/or by having the device automatically begin the check-in process as the device is determined to be in proximity to the desired business. In this regard, the proximity of the mobile device to the business can be determined in any suitable manner, including, but not limited to, the use of GPS location coordinates”].
wherein after the business usage module has determined that the first user was physically proximate to the one of the plurality of participating business entities for at least a length of time equal to or greater than the business time usage goal corresponding to the one of the participating business entities, then the business usage module stores, in the business usage module, a designation of customer status of the one of the participating business entities for the first user and [Stong; ¶57 shows a user has checked in (status information) then requests additional information such as “the business 76 identifies information that it wishes to receive about the user after the user has checked in and requests an authorization from the user over the local network (and/or another suitable communication channel). In these two examples, the business 76 delivers the authorization with the request for information to the central repository”. Also, ¶71 shows updating of arrival status as members of party arrive such as “the app may allow the user to identify how many people are in the user's party and whether or not all members of the party are present or not. If not all members of the party are present, the app might allow the user to update an arrival status as members of the party arrive so that the restaurant knows when to seat the party. Meanwhile, the user may be put in the restaurant's queue. The restaurant could notify the user of his or her wait time (and changes to the wait time as time passes), and could even use notification features of the mobile device (ringtone, vibration, spoken announcement, etc.) to notify the user when the restaurant is ready to seat the user's party”].
Stong doesn’t teach, Bell teaches:
a time measurement system, the time measurement system communicatively connected to the processor; [Bell; ¶17 shows analysis of time and generating time schedule such as “processor is configured to run one or more modules that are operable to cause the apparatus to receive, from the computing device, a time-series of location data points corresponding to a target entity, determine one or more attributes associated with the target entity based on the time-series of location data points”].
a plurality of participating business identifiers wherein each participating business identifier corresponds to a participating business entity of a plurality of participating business entities, and [Bell; ¶90 shows business as entity, displayed as target entity, with its coordinate and identifier].
a plurality of sets of global positioning system coordinates wherein each set of global positioning system coordinates corresponds to one of the plurality of participating business identifiers; [Bell; ¶90 shows business as entity, displayed as target entity, with its coordinate and identifier].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Stong by including limitation(s) as taught by Bell to include the above features in the invention of Stong. One would be motivated to modify Stong with the teachings of Bell since “can efficiently determine the one or more profiles of a target entity by representing a time-series of location information using sessions and clusters”. [Bell; ¶55].
Stong doesn’t teach, Desai teaches:
a business time usage module, the business time usage module receiving a plurality of business time usage goals wherein each of the plurality of business time usage goals corresponds to one of the plurality of participating business identifiers; [Desai; ¶17 shows merchant goals for when customers are within their vicinity such as “merchant may provide various information regarding goals and objectives the merchant wishes to achieve with regards to customers. According to the information regarding the current customers at any time, particular actions may be determined for the merchant to reach those goals and/or to improve overall user experience and may be provided to the merchant in real-time (e.g., while the current customers are proximate to the merchant's place of business), and/or automatically performed”].
instructs a customer review module to send a request to the first user requesting that the first user provide customer feedback to the computer system about the one of the business entities. [Desai; ¶32 shows sending users request for reviews and feedback such as “one or more of the recommended actions may be automatically performed in real-time (e.g., based on business preferences or settings). Example actions may include sending offers or advertisements to one or more of the users and/or encouraging reviews, feedback and/or social activity (e.g., checking in) from the users”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Stong by including limitation(s) as taught by Desai to include the above features in the invention of Stong. One would be motivated to modify Stong with the teachings of Desai since “user will enable the store to use location and other user data to provide better offers and other content”. [Desai; ¶25].
Re. claim 20,
Method of claim 20 substantially mirrors the computer system of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stong in view of Bell in view of Desai in view of Shoen et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20180225749 - hereinafter Shoen).
Re. claim 2, Stong in view of Bell in view of Desai teaches computer system in claim 1.
Stong teaches:
wherein the non-transitory storage medium further comprises:
a calendaring module, the calendaring module receiving scheduled events from businesses and sending instructions, to a smart device of the first user, to display a plurality of scheduled events; [Stong; ¶70-¶72 shows user is put in checking queue and user being sent updates with respect to restaurant].
a business availability receive module, receiving, for each of the number of participating business identifiers, of the plurality of participating business entities, a number of times for each of the plurality of participating business entities configured to schedule reservations made via the smart device communicatively-coupled with the computer system; [Stong; ¶61 and ¶70 shows setting up of appointment based on schedule availability].
Stong doesn’t teach, Bell teaches:
a business receive module, receiving a number of participating business identifiers, each of the number of participating business identifiers identifying a participating business entity, of a plurality of participating business entities, that is configured to schedule reservations made via a smart device communicatively-coupled with the computer system; [Bell; ¶90 shows business as entity, displayed as target entity, with its coordinate and identifier].
a pricing module, receiving a number of pricing options corresponding to the number of times for each of the plurality of business entities configured to schedule reservations made via the smart device communicatively-coupled with the computer system; [Bell; ¶67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Bell in the system of Stong, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Stong doesn’t teach, Shoen teaches:
an off-hour business usage module, the off-hour business usage module receiving a set of global positioning coordinates, associated with the smart device, from the smart device and measuring usage of the participating business during off-hours, for each of the number of businesses, by the smart device communicatively-coupled with the computer system. [Shoen; ¶61 shows usage for after business hours such as “If the customer's requested reservation is for a pickup time that is after business hours, the checkout page 150b will only display the option of using the pickup process described below for after-hours pickup. If the customer has created a new account during the checkout process, the rental management computer system 16 can send a verification code to the customer via an email or text and will cause the customer's computer 15 or mobile device 11 to display an account verification page 170 with which the customer can verify their new account. FIG. 9 shows one embodiment of an account verification page for this purpose”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Shoen in the system of Stong, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 5, Stong in view of Bell in view of Desai in view of Shoen teaches computer system in claim 2.
Stong doesn’t teach, Desai teaches:
further comprising a business objective module, the business objective module receiving a business objective to direct how the computer system presents content to the first user to help the business achieve its objective. [Desai; ¶17 shows merchant goals for when customers are within their vicinity such as “merchant may provide various information regarding goals and objectives the merchant wishes to achieve with regards to customers. According to the information regarding the current customers at any time, particular actions may be determined for the merchant to reach those goals and/or to improve overall user experience and may be provided to the merchant in real-time (e.g., while the current customers are proximate to the merchant's place of business), and/or automatically performed”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Desai in the system of Stong, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 6, Stong in view of Bell in view of Desai in view of Shoen teaches computer system in claim 5.
Stong doesn’t teach, Desai teaches:
wherein the reporting module reports an amount of time that the smart device communicatively-coupled with the computer system is physically proximate to the participating business and compares the amount of time to an expected amount of time that the smart device needs to be proximate to a business to demonstrate usage. [Desai; ¶25-¶28 as it shows “location of users may then be compared to the location of the business, to determine if the user is in proximity to the business. In one example, a predefined threshold distance or region may be defined for each business based on the location of the business. A user may be determined to be proximate to the business when the user is at a location that meets the threshold, and/or is within the region”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Desai in the system of Stong, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stong in view of Bell in view of Desai in view of Shoen in view of Lee et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20150120453 - hereinafter Lee).
Re. claim 3, Stong in view of Bell in view of Desai teaches computer system in claim 2.
Stong doesn’t teach, Lee teaches:
where a reporting module further reports the usage time at the participating business location as it relates to the number of times for each of the number of participating businesses which is allowing reservations to be scheduled using the computer system determines when the first user used the participating business during a time when the prices were in effect, where the pricing module receives a number of prices for business benefits and times when the prices remain in effect. [Lee; ¶18 shows customers receiving a discounted price such as “potential customers approach the merchant business location within the distance specified by the merchant, and a probability that a specific number of customers will redeem the offer during the validity time period of the offer at the discounted price. Subsequently, the system determines a promotional cost for the merchant based on a tiered cost structure, wherein the promotional cost is higher when the frequency increases and/or the distance decreases and/or the probability increases and/or specific number of customers increases. The system then sends, to the merchant, the frequency, the probability, the specific number of customers, and promotional cost”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Lee in the system of Stong, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 4, Stong in view of Bell in view of Desai in view Lee teaches computer system in claim 3.
Stong doesn’t teach, Lee teaches:
further comprising a revenue generation module, the revenue generation module calculating revenue based on the time the first user was present at a participating business and the number of prices for business benefits. [Lee; ¶100 shows calculation of revenue such as “server 102 can compute a promotional cost for the merchant's campaign based on factors including a distance measured from the merchant's business location, a discount price, a requested number of customers, a validity time period, requested revenue or profit, maximum number of offers for distribution, and/or other offer parameters”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Lee in the system of Stong, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights