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 .
Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments on 6/29/2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Overview
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-14, and 17-19 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
Claims 5-7, 10, 15-16, and 20-21 are canceled by the applicant.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-14, and 17-19 are rejected.
Applicant Arguments
In regards to Argument 1, Applicant states claims 1 and 11 were amended to include the subject matter that is a technological improvement and is not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant points to the amended limitations concerning electronically generating an enabling prompt, receiving a transaction execution command, and pre-wiring a digital wallet with a pre-transaction payment amount identified by user transaction trend and user transaction product pattern. Applicant argues these limitations are meaningful, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See Remarks, page 8 under Section IV).
In regards to Argument 2, Applicant states claim 1 incorporates subject matter from allowable claim 10 and the claims from which claim 10 depends, and claim 11 incorporates subject matter from allowable claim 20 and the claims from which claim 20 depends. Applicant states claims 1 and 11 and their dependents are therefore allowable (See Remarks, page 9 under Section V).
Examiner’s Response
In response to Argument 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant alleges that claims 1 and 11 are patent-eligible under section 101.
The Examiner finds that the amended limitations add further details to the same abstract commercial/user-behavior analysis and payment-prompt concept. The claims recite collecting transaction-area/user-behavior information, analyzing that information, forming a pre-transaction integration, generating an enabling prompt, receiving a transaction execution command, and pre-wiring a digital-wallet payment amount. These limitations are directed to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, including evaluating user behavior and transaction patterns to facilitate a purchase/payment action. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. The spatial computing device, electronic screen, central server, graph, and digital wallet are recited at a high level of generality and are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of the spatial computing device, central server, electronic screen, graph data structure, digital wallet, or payment network.
The Examiner interprets the amendments do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101.
In response to Argument 2, with respect to Claim(s) 1 and 11, the Examiner has fully considered the Argument and has found it persuasive as to the prior §103 rejection only, but not persuasive as to overall allowance. The Examiner notes the amended independent claims now contain non-verbatim/new payment-wallet and transaction-execution language not merely copied from the previously identified allowable subject matter in the dependent claims.
The Examiner interprets the claims remain rejected under §101 and claims 1 and 11 raise §112(b) issues.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 11-14, and 17-19 are 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.
Claim(s) 1 recites the limitation "the customer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. After amending “customer” to “user” in the first occurrence, the later recitation of “the customer physical behavior analysis” lacks clear antecedent basis and creates ambiguity as to whether it refers to the previously recited user physical behavior analysis or a different customer-related analysis.
Claim(s) 1 recites the limitation "the electronic screen". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 1 recites “in response a receipt of the transaction execution command…”. It is unclear what the response condition is.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 8-9 depend either directly or indirectly from the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, therefore they are also rejected.
Claim(s) 11 recites the limitation "a central server, wherein, based on the pre-transaction integration, the spatial computing device is further operable to transmit to the central server the pre-transaction integration which, in turn and following additional verification and analysis performed at the central server, electronically generate an enabling prompt, and transmit the enabling prompt to the spatial computing device…". The claim is unclear because the subject of “electronically generate” and “transmit” are not explicitly specified. The phrase “which, in turn…” appears to refer to “the pre-transaction integration” but a pre-transaction integration does not appear to be the component that electronically generates and transmits the enabling prompt. If the central server is intended to electronically generate and transmit the enabling prompt, the claim should be amended to clearly recite that the central server performs those operations.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 17-19 depend either directly or indirectly from the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11, therefore they are also rejected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 8-9, 11-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 11-14, and 17-19 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze Claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent Claim/s 11. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to a method that uses generic spatial computing data to gather conventional telemetry data in a retail setting, combines that data through a generic iterative graph technique, assigns conventional anchors, and outputs a prompt for a transaction.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1’s limitation of “retrieving, using the spatial computing device, a 360° view of a transaction area; performing environmental analysis of the transaction area; invoking user physical behavior analysis in the transaction area; reviewing user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area; monitoring a user transaction trend in the transaction area; monitoring a user transaction product pattern in the transaction area; and identifying a geo-location of the transaction area; using an iterative adjunction technique for implementing the telemetry-based user-behavior analysis, the iterative adjunction technique comprising: analyzing each of the 360° view of the transaction area, the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area, the analyzing for providing a root node in a graph; and iterating through one or more information gains, wherein each of the one or more information gains are associated with an information delta derived from a change to one of the 360° view of the transaction area, the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area; based on the 360° view of the transaction area, the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area, forming a pre-transaction integration of the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area; and based on the pre-transaction integration, electronically generating an enabling prompt at the spatial computing device in response to determining that the user is at the transaction area, said enabling prompt configured to receive a transaction execution command; receiving, at the electronic screen, the transaction execution command from the user in response to the enabling prompt; and in response a receipt of the transaction execution command, pre-wiring to a digital wallet a pre-transaction payment amount identified by the user transaction trend and the user transaction product pattern” is/are directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to a mental process / certain methods of organizing human activity / mathematical concepts by collecting transaction-area and user-related information (including a 360° view of a transaction area, environmental analysis, physical behavior analysis, user sentiment of legacy transactions, user transaction trend, user transaction product pattern, and geo-location), analyzing the information (using an iterative adjunction technique, graph/root-node analysis, information gains, and an information delta), forming a pre-transaction integration, generating an enabling prompt, receiving a transaction execution command, and pre-wiring a digital wallet with a pre-transaction payment amount identified by the user transaction trend and user transaction product pattern. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that Claim 1 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claim/s is/are adding the words of “applying it” with more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) / insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) / generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims recite generic computer-related components. The claimed “spatial computing device” does not improve the operation of spatial computing technology itself. The device is used to retrieve or monitor a 360° view, collect transaction-area information, and deliver/receive prompts. The graph/root-node/information-gain/information-delta limitations do not improve computer technology, they define how collected commercial/user-behavior information is organized and analyzed to support a decision or prompt. The digital wallet is used as a tool to implement the commercial payment decision. The remaining limitations are data gathering, data analysis, outputting a prompt, receiving a user command, and preparing a payment action. Retrieving a 360° view, assigning anchors to sub-regions or products, monitoring transaction trends/product patterns, and identifying geo-location are merely data collection or field-of-use limitations. Generating the enabling prompt, receiving the transaction execution command, and pre-wiring a digital wallet are extra-solution or post-analysis steps that apply the result of the abstract idea in a commercial environment. See, MPEP §2106.04(a), Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the Claim/s is/state:
collect transaction-area and user-behavior data;
analyze and organize that data using graph/information-gain techniques;
form a pre-transaction integration;
generate and present a prompt;
receive a transaction command; and
prepare a digital-wallet payment amount.
The examiner interprets the claim, in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation, to be drawn to Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity - see MPEP 2106.05(d) / Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception- see MPEP 2106.05(f) / Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the central server recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claims 2-4, 8-9, 12-14, and 17-19 depending on the independent claim/s include all the limitation of the independent claim.
The Examiner finds that Claim 2 involves assigning one or more anchor points to sub-regions, products, or groups of products within a transaction area. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a certain methods of organizing human activity and insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim describes routine augmented reality anchoring techniques commonly used in spatial computing systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 3 involves assigning one or more anchor points to sub-regions, products, or groups of products within a transaction area. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a certain methods of organizing human activity and insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim describes routine augmented reality anchoring techniques commonly used in spatial computing systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 4 involves assigning one or more anchor points to sub-regions, products, or groups of products within a transaction area. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a certain methods of organizing human activity and insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim describes routine augmented reality anchoring techniques commonly used in spatial computing systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 8 involves implementing an iterative adjunction techniques that analyzes multiple data sources as root nodes, iterates through one or more information gains, generates additional nodes on a graph, and leverages the root and additional nodes for pre-transaction integration. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mathematical concept and mental processes (observation, analysis, evaluation, and judgement). The claim describes routine data organization and iterative graph-building techniques commonly used in analytic systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 9 involves implementing an iterative adjunction techniques that analyzes multiple data sources as root nodes, iterates through one or more information gains, generates additional nodes on a graph, and leverages the root and additional nodes for pre-transaction integration. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mathematical concept and mental processes (observation, analysis, evaluation, and judgement). The claim describes routine data organization and iterative graph-building techniques commonly used in analytic systems without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, Claims 2-4, 8-9, 12-14, and 17-19 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-14, and 17-19 contain subject matter that is allowable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-14, and 17-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and § 112(b).
The closest prior art, Morrison et al (US 20170132842 A1, hereafter referred to as Morrison), Glaser et al (US 20190378205 A1, hereafter referred to as Glaser), and Angell et al (US 20080249870 A1, hereafter referred to as Angell). Morrison shows a similar system which includes an augmented-reality/spatial retail transaction environment including user input, user gesture/reaction detection, geolocation/reference-marker information, and digital-wallet transaction processing. Glaser teaches computer-vision monitoring of a retail/shopping environment using an environmental object graph and executing associated checkout/action logic. Angell teaches a retail marketing decision tree that uses customer profile data, dynamic customer data, customer location, previous paths, previous purchases, and customer movement to present customized marketing content. However, the prior art fails to disclose “iterating through one or more information gains, wherein each of the one or more information gains are associated with an information delta derived from a change to one of the 360° view of the transaction area, the environmental analysis of the transaction area, the customer physical behavior analysis in the transaction area, the user sentiment of legacy transactions in the transaction area, the user transaction trend in the transaction area, the user transaction product pattern in the transaction area, and the geo-location of the transaction area” together with “pre-wiring to a digital wallet a pre-transaction payment amount identified by the user transaction trend and the user transaction product pattern”. These features have been added to independent claims 1 and 11; therefore, the pending claims contain subject matter allowable over the prior art under §103, but remain rejected under §101 and §112(b) as set forth in the action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN P CASCAIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Mr. O’Neal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Date: 7/9/2026
Prosecution Insights