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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/11/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6 and 9-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 4, substitute “The method for providing exhibition information according to Claim 2” with -- The method for monitoring visitors according to claim 2 -- (see line 1).
Re claim 5, substitute “The method for providing exhibition information according to Claim 2” with -- The method for monitoring visitors according to claim 2 -- (see line 1).
Re claim 6, substitute “The method for providing exhibition information according to Claim 2” with -- The method for monitoring visitors according to claim 2 -- (see line 1).
Re claim 9, substitute “The method for providing exhibition information according to Claim 8” with -- The method for monitoring visitors according to claim 8 -- (see line 1).
Re claim 10, substitute “The method for providing exhibition information according to Claim 9” with -- The method for monitoring visitors according to claim 9 -- (see line 1).
Re claim 11, substitute “The method for providing exhibition information according to Claim 10” with -- The method for monitoring visitors according to claim 10 -- (see line 1).
Re claim 12, substitute “The method for providing exhibition information according to Claim 8” with -- The method for monitoring visitors according to claim 8 -- (see line 1).
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 2, 4-6, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites identifying a first user terminal entering an exhibition hall; and transmitting information of a first user corresponding to the first user terminal to a spot management terminal. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations of identifying a first user terminal entering an exhibition hall; and transmitting information of a first user corresponding to the first user terminal to a spot management terminal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the “identifying” step in the context of the claims encompasses the user using his/her eyes to identify a first user terminal; and the step of “transmitting information” in the context of the claims encompasses the user using a pen and paper to transmit information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include any additional elements or limitations requiring computer implementation of the method and thus does not involve the use of a computer in any way. The recited steps of “identifying” and “transmitting” could be performed by humans without the use of a computer. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the lack of additional elements to perform both the identifying and transmitting steps render the claim not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 18 recite obtaining visit information of a first user terminal; and transmitting information to a first user terminal. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations of obtaining visit information of a first user terminal; and transmitting information to a first user terminal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the “obtaining” step in the context of the claims encompasses the user using his/her eyes to obtain visit information; and the step of “transmitting information” in the context of the claims encompasses the user using a pen and paper to transmit information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computing system to perform both the obtaining and transmitting steps. The computing system in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform both the obtaining and transmitting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites identifying a first user terminal; and transmitting information to a spot management terminal. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations of identifying a first user terminal; and transmitting information to spot management terminal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the “identifying” step in the context of the claims encompasses the user using his/her eyes to identify a first user terminal; and the step of “transmitting information” in the context of the claims encompasses the user using a pen and paper to transmit information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform both the identifying and transmitting steps. The computing system in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of transmitting information) such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the identifying and transmitting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chung (US 2007/0136154).
Re claims 2 and 14, Chung discloses a method and system for monitoring visitors at an exhibition, comprising:
one or more processors (paragraph 0189); and
a memory that stores a computer program executed by the one or more processors (paragraph 0189), wherein the computer program is stored on a computer-readable recording medium to execute:
identifying a first user terminal entering an exhibition hall (paragraphs 0046-0060, 0083-0086); and
transmitting information of a first user corresponding to the first user terminal to a spot management terminal at a first spot in response to identifying that a first condition is satisfied, when a location of the first user terminal reaches the first spot that is one of a plurality of spots existing in the exhibition hall (paragraphs 0046-0060, 0083-0086).
Re claim 4, Chung further discloses wherein the first condition is that the first user terminal stays in a first area or a second area of the first spot for more than a reference time (paragraphs 0020, 0053, 0058).
Re claims 6 and 16, Chung further discloses wherein the first condition is that the information of the first user satisfies conditions predefined by the spot management terminal at the first spot (paragraphs 0020, 0053, 0058).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to APRIL A TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 9am-6pm.
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, STEVEN S PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/APRIL A TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876