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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/31/2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, the claims recite, in part, analyzing at least one of image content or video content captured of a location to determine a plurality of first objects included in the at least one of image content or video content; storing user activity information that corresponds to a user activity, the user activity being performed at the location and the user activity information including the plurality of first objects; causing display of user content included in a live view captured; responsive to selection, executing to scan a portion of the user content; determining, using one or more object recognition techniques, a plurality of second objects included in the user content; performing an analysis of the at least one of the plurality of second objects with respect to the plurality of first objects, wherein the analysis includes performing a progression of analyzing one or more of the plurality of first objects with respect to one or more of the plurality of second objects until a measure of similarity between at least a portion of the plurality of second objects is at least a threshold level of similarity with respect to at least a portion of the plurality of first objects; determining, based on the analysis, that the user content corresponds to a location; determining that the user activity corresponds to a visit to the location based on the user content corresponding to the location; executing, based on the user content corresponding to the location, one or more functions of an augmented reality content item to cause display of graphical content related to a promotion as an overlay of the live view of the user content, wherein the user activity corresponds to the promotion; and causing display that includes an indication of an amount of current user activity with respect to the promotion by a user of a client application, wherein the amount of the current user activity is displayed in relation to an additional amount of user activity before a redemption option of the promotion is triggered for the user of the client application.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, is directed towards targeted display of promotional content with an augmented reality environment, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of one or more user devices that each include a processor and memory (claim 1), first user interface (claims 1, 10, 17), user interface element corresponding to a scanning tool (claims 1, 10, 17), second user interface (claims 1, 10, 17, appears to merely display data with no “interface” functionality), third user interface (claims 1, 10, 17, appears to merely display data with no “interface” functionality), device (claim 10)¸ one or more processors (claim 10)¸ memory (claim 10)¸ camera (claims 1, 10, 17)¸ non-transitory computer-readable media (claim 17), and one or more hardware processors (claim 17). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of analyzing, storing, causing display, determining, performing, and executing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using one or more user devices that each include a processor and memory (claim 1), first user interface (claims 1, 10, 17, appears to merely display data with no “interface” functionality), scanning tool (claims 1, 10, 17), second user interface (claims 1, 10, 17, appears to merely display data with no “interface” functionality), third user interface (claims 1, 10, 17, appears to merely display data with no “interface” functionality), device (claim 10)¸ one or more processors (claim 10)¸ memory (claim 10)¸ camera (claims 1, 10, 17)¸ non-transitory computer-readable media (claim 17), and one or more hardware processors (claim 17) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Paragraph 0149); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 appear to merely limit an additional user interface element for scanning, specifics of the user activity data, displaying an option to redeem a promotion, receiving a redemption code, generating financial transaction data, specific type of the object recognition technique, specifics of the identifier, threshold levels of user activity, causing a reset of the user activity, and storing user activity in relation to profile data, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The one or more user devices that each include a processor and memory (claim 1), first user interface (claims 1, 10, 17, appears to merely display data with no “interface” functionality), scanning tool (claims 1, 10, 17), second user interface (claims 1, 10, 17, appears to merely display data with no “interface” functionality), third user interface (claims 1, 10, 17, appears to merely display data with no “interface” functionality), device (claim 10)¸ one or more processors (claim 10)¸ memory (claim 10)¸ camera (claims 1, 10, 17)¸ non-transitory computer-readable media (claim 17), and one or more hardware processors (claim 17) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of analyzing, storing, causing display, determining, performing, and executing, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the one or more user devices that each include a processor and memory (claim 1), first user interface (claims 1, 10, 17, appears to merely display data with no “interface” functionality), scanning tool (claims 1, 10, 17), second user interface (claims 1, 10, 17, appears to merely display data with no “interface” functionality), third user interface (claims 1, 10, 17, appears to merely display data with no “interface” functionality), device (claim 10)¸ one or more processors (claim 10)¸ memory (claim 10)¸ camera (claims 1, 10, 17)¸ non-transitory computer-readable media (claim 17), and one or more hardware processors (claim 17) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 as currently written are novel/non-obvious allowable over prior art. However, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is currently pending and represents a barrier to allowability. Examiner notes that any amendments made to the claims in an attempt to correct pending rejections could drastically alter the claim scope and could open up the possibility of prior art being applied in a future action.
Ramkumar (U.S. Pub No. 2021.0299961) teaches causing, by one or more user devices that each include a processor and memory, display of a first user interface that includes user content included in a live view captured by a camera of the one or more user devices; executing, by the one or more user devices, a scanning tool to scan a portion of the user content; determining, by the one or more user devices and using one or more object recognition techniques, at least one of one or more objects, one or more shapes, one or more contours, or one or more colors of the user content; performing, by the one or more user devices, an analysis of the at least one of the one or more objects, the one or more shapes, the one or more contours, or the one or more colors with respect to at least one of image content or video content of a plurality of locations; determining, by the one or more user devices and based on the analysis, that the user content corresponds to a location of the plurality of locations, executing, by the one or more user devices and based on the user content corresponding to the location, one or more functions of an augmented reality content item to cause display of a second user interface including graphical content related to the promotion as an overlay of the live view of the user content. Ramkumar, however, does not teach each and every limitation recited in the above claim language.
Chang (U.S. Patent No. 11,222,353) teaches causing, by the one or more user devices display of a third user interface that includes an indication of an amount of current user activity with respect to the promotion by a user of a client application, wherein the amount of the current user activity is displayed in relation to an additional amount of user activity before a redemption option of the promotion is triggered for the user of the client application; and determining, by the one or more user devices, that the user activity corresponds to a visit to the location based on the user content corresponding to the location of the plurality of locations. Chang, however, does not cure all the deficiencies of Ramkumar, and the combination of Ramkumar and Chang do not teach each and every limitation recited in the above claim language.
Kansal (U.S. Pub No. 2016/0154821) teaches analyzing, by one or more computing devices that each include a processor and memory, at least one of image content or video content captured of a location to determine a plurality of first objects included in the at least one of image content or video content and performing, by the one or more computing devices, an analysis of the plurality of second objects with respect to the plurality of first objects, wherein the analysis includes performing a progression of analyzing one or more of the plurality of first objects with respect to one or more of the plurality of second objects until a measure of similarity between at least a portion of the plurality of second objects is at least a threshold level of similarity with respect to at least a portion of the plurality of first objects. Kansal, however, does not cure all the deficiencies of Ramkumar and Chang, and the combination of Ramkumar, Chang, and Kansal do not teach each and every limitation recited in the above claim language.
None of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Specifically, none of the applied references teaches storing user activity information that includes a plurality of first objects followed by performing of the analysis in the exact way claimed and determining that the user content corresponds to the location based on the analysis and that the user activity corresponds to a visit to the location based on the user content. While each of the references on their own teach elements of the invention, the combination of those references would be piecemeal and would not result in the claimed invention. There is no prior art that teaches each and every limitation of the invention as a whole in combination with one another. Therefore Examiner finds the independent claims to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “implementing the progressive analysis of objects included in user content with respect to objects previously associated with a location "until a measure of similarity between at least a portion of the plurality of second objects is at least a threshold level of similarity with respect to at least a portion of the plurality of first objects" is not a commercial interaction that includes advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors” and “the features added to claim 1 are directed to implementing a specific method of determining a location depicted in user content, which is not a method of organizing human activity”. However, the targeting of the advertising of the claim language is accomplished through the object recognition now incorporated into the claim language. Therefore, the progressive analysis and object recognition is directly involved in the determination of what to advertise. Further, there are numerous court decisions that involve image capture and analysis that were found to recite an abstract idea, including TLI Communications (Classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner), Recognicorp (Encoding and decoding image data), and Secured Mail Solutions (Using a marking affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object). Further, Electric Power Group (Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis) is also directly related to the amended claim language. Therefore, merely performing the added limitations using a general purpose device is not believed to overcome the 101 rejection.
Applicant argues “the progressive analysis of amended claim 1 improves the functioning of the computing device that is implementing the method of amended claim 1 by reducing the number of computational resources used in relation to conventional techniques. For example, because the progressive analysis of amended claim 1 stops when the measure of similarity between objects included in user content and objects previously identified as being in a location is a threshold level, fewer computing resources are used to determine the location related to the user content than in conventional techniques that compare each of the objects in the user content with each of the objects previously identified as being associated with the location and then making a level of similarity determination”. However, the specification does not provide any evidence that this was a consideration envisioned by Applicant at the time of filing. Further, the computer itself is left unchanged by the claim language. The computer resources aren’t saved, but rather the exact amount of computer resources are used that are needed. The claims still merely represent applying the abstract idea with a general purpose computer, and are still ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references have been cited to further show the state of the art with respect to location identifying using image recognition:
U.S. Pub No. 2012/0232977 to Calman
U.S. Patent No. 8,144,920 to Kansal
U.S. Pub No. 2020/0322754 to Soule
WO 2018/125766 to Barnett
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights