DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to preliminary claim amendments filed February 20th, 2024. Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 17-19 have been amended. Claim 15 has been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0113] recites “contact information 425” which is a typographical error that should recite “contact information”; and
Paragraph [0114] recites item 325 as “information processing” which is a typographical error and should recite item 320.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation beginning “said module capable” recite “quires” which is a typographical error that should recite “queries”;
The limitation beginning “said module collecting” recites “the user’s input” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “based on user’s input”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims begin “The system” which is a typographical error that should recite “The device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation recites "after the completion" which lacks antecedent basis and should recite "after completion". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of the claim recites "the steps of" which lacks antecedent basis and should recite "comprising". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: the final line of the claim recites "the system" which lacks antecedent basis and should recite "a system". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the claim depends from now withdrawn claim 15, which is a typographical error that should depend from claim 14;
Line 3 of the claim recites “the user experience” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a user’s experience”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 recites "the interactions" which lacks antecedent basis and should recite "an interaction". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the limitation recites "after the completion" which lacks antecedent basis and should recite "after completion"; and
The final line recites “the system” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“said module displaying interactions, presented on said module” in claim 1;
“said module dispending a product or products based on collected data” in claim 1;
“the module providing said direct data, indirect data, or a combination thereof” in claim 2;
“the interface is comprised of a screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module, or a combination thereof” in claim 3;
“the module is located at a retail location, grocery store, department store, entertainment or theme park, educational institution, venue or external to a building wherein said system has logic” in claim 4;
“a module operator, a third-party process or a vendor to measure user engagement” in claim 7;
“approaching module by user” in claim 9;
“interacting with module by user” in claim 9;
“registering, by user, with module software through provision of user-specific information into module” in claim 9;
“prompting, by module, user input of direct information” in claim 9;
“answering module prompts” in claim 9;
“collecting and processing, by module, direct user information” in claim 9;
“integrating indirect information, by module, with indirect user information” in claim 9;
“said user interacts with said module” in claim 10;
“said module’s data collection means” in claim 11;
“said module outputs information/data from information processing” in claim 14;
“the interactions prompting said user is provided through a module” in claim 18;
“the interface is comprised of a screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module, or a combination thereof” in claim 18;
“the user’s interaction module outputs information/data” in claim 19
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the method claim recites a “module” as the sole structural element of the independent claim. The claim recites various limitations of the user interacting with the module; however, it is unclear how the user could interact with the module as claimed. For example, the claim recites “approaching module by user”. It is unclear to Examiner how the user could approach and/or interact with a module. While Applicant states the following in paragraph [0020] of the as-filed Specification, “Disclosed are devices, methods, and systems comprising data driven technology that may include logic, e.g., hardware module(s), software module(s) and/or firmware, or a combination thereof, hereinafter (the “dispenser machine” or “module”), that is located remotely (i.e., cloud based), locally (within a “module), or a combination thereof, that may be capable of interfacing consumers, manufacturers and retailers via an integrated matrix, wherein consumers and/or suppliers may positively affect consumer interactions and experiences” it is unclear within the present claims whether the module is referring to the stated hardware or software implementation. Additionally, the following limitation within the claim recites “registering, by user, with module software”, however it is unclear how the user could interact with the module software as claimed. Further clarification and amendment is required regarding the supporting structure and hardware of the claimed module. In the interest of furthering prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the module to be acting within a corresponding device to execute the claimed limitations.
Various claim limitations containing “module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. For example, regarding the registering of users with module software, the specification merely states “The disclosed devices, methods and systems may include an interaction module for registration purposes, which may attract user registration through economic incentives, such as discounts, points, rewards, acquisition of free products, or a combination thereof”. [0069]. While the specification lists a generic “device” it does not provide adequate structure for performing the registration. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect user registration. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions associated with the module. The specification does not demonstrate the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The present claim depends from withdrawn dependent claim 15. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-8
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (non-transitory program storage device) and dependent claims 2-8, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a non-transitory program storage device (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite effectuating an interactive system for gathering data/information from a user, comprising: a module; said module comprised of logic; said logic including hardware, software, firmware or a combination thereof; said module capable of interfacing, via an interface, said user with quires, a product or products, or a combination thereof, via data entry; said module displaying interactions, presented on said module, via said interface; said module collecting and processing data/information based on the user's input; said user input comprising direct data, indirect data, or a combination thereof; said module dispensing a product or products based on collected data; said product is a tangible product, intangible product, a service, or a combination thereof; collecting such information obtained from the user's interaction; utilizing the obtained information; and said system modifying user's interaction with the system (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are dispensing a product or products based on collected data & utilizing the obtained information to modify user’s interactions with the system, which is managing personal behavior as well as commercial interaction in the form of advertising. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are dispensing a product or products based on collected data & utilizing the obtained information to modify user’s interactions with the system, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are gathering data/information from a user, dispensing a product or products based on collected data & utilizing the obtained information to modify user’s interactions with the system, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are gathering data/information from a user, dispensing a product or products based on collected data & utilizing the obtained information to modify user’s interactions with the system, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4-5, & 7-8 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining user interaction with the module; the commercial locations of the module; and the modification of user interactions. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as advertising & sales activity in addition to mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 3 and 6 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “interfacing, via an interface, said user with quires, a product or products, or a combination thereof, via data entry; said module displaying interactions, presented on said module, via said interface; said module collecting and processing data/information based on the user's input; said user input comprising direct data, indirect data, or a combination thereof; collecting such information obtained from the user's interaction” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A non-transitory program storage device comprising instructions; an interactive system; a module; said module comprised of logic; said logic including hardware, software, firmware or a combination thereof; said module capable of interfacing, via an interface” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4-5, and 7-8 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 additionally recite “user interacts with the module providing said direct data, indirect data, or a combination thereof”; “the interface is comprised of a screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module, or a combination thereof”; “said user is presented with interactions on said module, wherein said user may access interactions”; “outputs information/data for information processing, comprised of direct information about said user, such as age, gender, contact information, socio-economics and identifying information is combined with preferences of said user, and indirect information, such as geographic location, time, of the module”; “presented to the user to provide a feedback loop gather further data” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “module”, “screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module, or a combination thereof”, “the interactive system”, “the device” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A non-transitory program storage device comprising instructions; an interactive system; a module; said module comprised of logic; said logic including hardware, software, firmware or a combination thereof; said module capable of interfacing, via an interface” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, non-transitory program storage device claims recite “A non-transitory program storage device comprising instructions; an interactive system; a module; said module comprised of logic; said logic including hardware, software, firmware or a combination thereof; said module capable of interfacing, via an interface”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Figure 4. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “interfacing, via an interface, said user with quires, a product or products, or a combination thereof, via data entry; said module displaying interactions, presented on said module, via said interface; said module collecting and processing data/information based on the user's input; said user input comprising direct data, indirect data, or a combination thereof; collecting such information obtained from the user's interaction” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2, 4-5, and 7-8 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 additionally recite “user interacts with the module providing said direct data, indirect data, or a combination thereof”; “the interface is comprised of a screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module, or a combination thereof”; “said user is presented with interactions on said module, wherein said user may access interactions”; “outputs information/data for information processing, comprised of direct information about said user, such as age, gender, contact information, socio-economics and identifying information is combined with preferences of said user, and indirect information, such as geographic location, time, of the module”; “presented to the user to provide a feedback loop gather further data” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “module”, “screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module, or a combination thereof”, “the interactive system”, “the device” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 9-14 & 16
Step 1: Independent claims 9 (method), and dependent claims 10-14 & 16, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 9 is directed to a method (i.e. process).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite an interactive method for gathering data/information from a user, comprising: approaching module by user; interacting with module by user; registering, by user, with module software through provision of user-specific information into module; registration information comprising e-mail, cellular phone, facial recognition, verbally, via a membership card, virtual wallet or through a URL or mobile phone application, or a combination thereof; prompting, by module, user input of direct information; direct information comprising phone, email, social media information, age, gender or preferences, or a combination thereof; answering module prompts, by user; collecting and processing, by module, direct user information;
integrating indirect information, by module, with indirect user information; indirect information such as demographic information, location information and socio-economic information; and customizing products or services offered to a user, through direct and indirect information gathering, to identify, categorize a user to a specific group or demographic to tailor products and services to user (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are customizing products or services offered to a user, through direct and indirect information gathering, to identify, categorize a user to a specific group or demographic to tailor products and services to user, which is commercial interaction in the form of advertising and sales activity. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are customizing products or services offered to a user, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are gathering data/information from a user, comprising: approaching module by user; interacting with module by user; registering, by user, through provision of user-specific information into module; registration information comprising e-mail, cellular phone, facial recognition, verbally, via a membership card, virtual wallet or through a URL or mobile phone application, or a combination thereof; processing, by module, direct user information; integrating indirect information, by module, with indirect user information; indirect information such as demographic information, location information and socio-economic information; and customizing products or services offered to a user, through direct and indirect information gathering, to identify, categorize a user to a specific group or demographic to tailor products and services to user, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are gathering data/information from a user to customize products or services offered to a user, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, dependent claims 10, 12-14, and 16 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining user interactions with the module, preferences being used to advertise, and the processing of information. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as advertising & sales activity as well as mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 11 and 14 will be discussed in Prong 2 below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “prompting, by module, user input of direct information; direct information comprising phone, email, social media information, age, gender or preferences, or a combination thereof; answering module prompts, by user; collecting, by module, direct user information; integrating indirect information, by module, with indirect user information; indirect information such as demographic information, location information and socio-economic information” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “module” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 10, 12-14, and 16 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 10-11, 13-14, & 16 additionally recite “inputting user information; said information comprised of direct information, indirect information or information gathered from gamification; receiving a product, service, coupon, rebate, reward or combination thereof reflective of user inputs”, “said module's data collection means is comprised of a screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module”, “wherein the user is presented with interactions which the user may access”, “outputs information/data for information processing, comprised of direct and indirect information”, “gather further data” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “module's data collection means is comprised of a screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module” and “a mobile or portable device” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “module” is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 9-16 recite “a module”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Figure 4. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “prompting, by module, user input of direct information; direct information comprising phone, email, social media information, age, gender or preferences, or a combination thereof; answering module prompts, by user; collecting, by module, direct user information; integrating indirect information, by module, with indirect user information; indirect information such as demographic information, location information and socio-economic information” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 10, 12-14, and 16 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 10-11, 13-14, & 16 additionally recite “inputting user information; said information comprised of direct information, indirect information or information gathered from gamification; receiving a product, service, coupon, rebate, reward or combination thereof reflective of user inputs”, “said module's data collection means is comprised of a screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module”, “wherein the user is presented with interactions which the user may access”, “outputs information/data for information processing, comprised of direct and indirect information”, “gather further data” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “module's data collection means is comprised of a screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module” and “a mobile or portable device” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 17-20
Step 1: Independent claims 17 (method), and dependent claims 18-20, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 17 is directed to a method (i.e. process).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite a method of gathering information from a user to advertise products, sample products, sell products, target consumers, collect consumer data, or a combination thereof, through gamification, comprising: collecting direct information from user through a registration process; collecting indirect information from user through indirect information; collecting preference information through gamification; combining direct information, indirect information and preference information; and determining likely preferences based on gathered information (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are gathering information from a user to advertise products, sample products, sell products, target consumers, collect consumer data, or a combination thereof, through gamification, which is commercial interactions in the form of advertising and sales activity. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are gathering information from a user to advertise products, sample products, sell products, target consumers, collect consumer data, or a combination thereof, through gamification, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are gathering information from a user to advertise products, sample products, sell products, target consumers, collect consumer data, or a combination thereof, through gamification; combining direct information, indirect information and preference information; and determining likely preferences based on gathered information, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are gathering information from a user to advertise products, sample products, sell products, target consumers, collect consumer data, or a combination thereof, through gamification; combining direct information, indirect information and preference information; and determining likely preferences based on gathered information, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 18-20 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the user interaction with the module; output inventory of product available in the system to disperse; and the analysis of information/data. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as advertising & sales activity as well as mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “collecting direct information from user through a registration process; collecting indirect information from user through indirect information; collecting preference information through gamification” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception.
In addition, dependent claims 18-20 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 18-19 additionally recite “the interactions prompting said user is provided through a module comprised of a screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module, and interactions on said module wherein said user may access the interactions” and “outputs information/data for information processing, comprised of direct information about the user, such as age, gender, contact information, socio-economics or other identifying information, preferences of the user, indirect information, such as geographic location, and time of the module interaction” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “a module comprised of a screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module”, “a mobile or portable device”, and “user’s interactions module” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “a module comprised of a screen, touch screen, gesture recognition module, human presence detection module, audio recognition detection module; a mobile or portable device; user’s interactions module” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptio