DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 7/22/2025.
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 .
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, causing display of user content included in a live view captured; executing to scan a portion of the user content; determining, 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 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, based on the analysis, that the user content corresponds to a location of the plurality of locations; determining that user activity relating to a promotion corresponds to a visit to the location based on the user content corresponding to the location of the plurality of locations; 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 the promotion as an overlay of the live view of the user content; 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 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, 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). 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 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramkumar (U.S. Pub No. 2021.0299961) in view of Chang (U.S. Patent No. 11,222,353).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 17, Ramkumar 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 (Figures 3, 4, Paragraphs 0029-0030); executing, by the one or more user devices, a scanning tool to scan a portion of the user content (Paragraphs 0035, 0042); 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 (Paragraphs 0035-0038); 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 (Figure 9, Paragraphs 0036, determine whether tracked features match with previously detected products, 0045, detected products are associated with tagged 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 (Figure 9, Paragraph 0045, once recognized, the item is tagged with a corresponding location), 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 (Figures 3, 4, 11, Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0035, 0042, and 0045).
Ramkumar does not appear to specify 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. However, Chang 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 (Figures 6a-6b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to display progress towards earning a promotion in order to allow a user to see how close or far away they are from earning a promotion, thereby providing incentive to initiate more activity to earn the reward.
Ramkumar does not appear to specify 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. However, Chang teaches 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 (Figure 6a, Column 9 Line 48 – Column 10 Line 5, Column 11 Lines 15-28, automatically determine matching location, receive punch for visiting a financial planner). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to offer rewards for user activity comprising visiting a location in order to incentivize that user to visit a location.
Regarding claims 2, 16, Ramkumar teaches causing, by the one or more user devices, an additional user interface element to be displayed in the first user interface, the additional user interface element indicating a portion of the user content that is to be scanned; and executing, by the one or more user devices, the scanning tool to scan the portion of the user content indicated by the additional user interface element (Paragraphs 0034-0035, 0039-0040).
Regarding claim 3, Ramkumar does not appear to specify the amount of the current user activity is displayed in relation to the additional amount of user activity by at least one of image content, video content, or animation content. However, Chang teaches the amount of the current user activity is displayed in relation to the additional amount of user activity by at least one of image content, video content, or animation content (Figures 6a-6b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to display progress towards earning a promotion in order to allow a user to see how close or far away they are from earning a promotion, thereby providing incentive to initiate more activity to earn the reward.
Regarding claim 4, Ramkumar teaches the augmented reality content item is executable to display at least one of additional image content or additional video content including one or more options to redeem the promotion with respect to the user of the client application (Figure 3, Paragraph 0042).
Regarding claims 5, 12, Ramkumar does not appear to specify determining selection of an option of the one or more options to redeem the promotion; and receiving a redemption code in response to selection of the option. However, Chang teaches determining selection of an option of the one or more options to redeem the promotion; and receiving a redemption code in response to selection of the option (Figures 6b-6c). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to display an option to redeem rewards and display a redemption code in order to place the decision to redeem in the user’s hands.
Regarding claim 6, Ramkumar does not appear to specify generating financial transaction information that is applicable to one or more purchases of a product related to the promotion using the redemption code. However, Chang teaches generating financial transaction information that is applicable to one or more purchases of a product related to the promotion using the redemption code (Column 21 Lines 23-45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to generate financial data applicable to redeem a promotion in order to place the decision to redeem in the user’s hands.
Regarding claim 7, Ramkumar does not appear to specify the amount of current user activity with respect to the promotion corresponds to a number of purchases of one or more products by the user. However, Chang teaches the amount of current user activity with respect to the promotion corresponds to a number of purchases of one or more products by the user (Figure 6a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to display progress towards earning a promotion in order to allow a user to see how close or far away they are from earning a promotion, thereby providing incentive to initiate more activity to earn the reward.
Regarding claim 8, Ramkumar teaches the one or more object recognition techniques include at least one of one or more feature-based object recognition techniques or one or more appearance-based object recognition technique (Paragraphs 0035-0036, feature-based).
Regarding claim 9, Ramkumar teaches the user content includes an identifier corresponding to the location that includes at least one of a quick response (QR) code or a bar code (Paragraphs 0034-0035, bar code, 0045, recognized products are tagged with a location).
Regarding claim 11, Ramkumar does not appear to specify causing one or more user interface elements to be displayed in at least one of the third user interface or in a fourth user interface, individual user interface elements of the one or more user interface elements corresponding to an option to redeem at least a portion of the user activity with respect to the promotion. However, Chang teaches individual user interface elements of the one or more user interface elements corresponding to an option to redeem at least a portion of the user activity with respect to the promotion (Figure 6b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to display an option to redeem rewards in order to place the decision to redeem in the user’s hands.
Regarding claim 13, Ramkumar teaches receiving an offer to participate in the promotion from a service provider; and providing an indication to participate in the promotion to the service provider (Figure 3, Paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 18, Ramkumar does not appear to specify receiving a redemption code for the promotion in response to the user accumulating an amount of user activity that corresponds a threshold amount of the user activity. However, Chang teaches receiving a redemption code for the promotion in response to the user accumulating an amount of user activity that corresponds a threshold amount of the user activity. (Figures 6b-6c). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to display an option to redeem rewards and display a redemption code in order to place the decision to redeem in the user’s hands.
Regarding claim 19, Ramkumar does not appear to specify causing the amount of user activity with respect to the promotion to be reset in response to redemption of the promotion. However, Chang teaches beginning a promotion with initial activity (Figure 4). This means that once the user activity is filled on the punch card, a user can restart a new promotion, which would equate to a resetting of user activity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to restart a promotion at the initial point of user activity in order to get the most activity from a user for each promotion round.
Regarding claim 20, Ramkumar does not appear to specify the amount of user activity with respect to the promotion is stored in relation to profile data of the user. However, Chang teaches the amount of user activity with respect to the promotion is stored in relation to profile data of the user (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to store activity data in relation to profile data in order to know which activity data pertains to which user.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramkumar (U.S. Pub No. 2021.0299961) in view of Chang (U.S. Patent No. 11,222,353), and further in view of Owen (U.S. Pub No. 2015/0142550).
Regarding claim 14, Ramkumar does not appear to specify the promotion includes a first threshold level of user activity that corresponds to a first reward in relation to the promotion and a second threshold level of user activity that corresponds to a second reward in relation to the promotion. However, Owen teaches the promotion includes a first threshold level of user activity that corresponds to a first reward in relation to the promotion and a second threshold level of user activity that corresponds to a second reward in relation to the promotion (Figure 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include different reward thresholds in order to entice consumers to qualify for as many rewards as possible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramkumar (U.S. Pub No. 2021.0299961) in view of Chang (U.S. Patent No. 11,222,353), and further in view of Schumacher (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0118154).
Regarding claim 15, Ramkumar does not appear to specify the one or more object recognition techniques include one or more convolutional neural network-based techniques to identify one or more objects included in the user content. However, Schumacher teaches the one or more object recognition techniques include one or more convolutional neural network-based techniques to identify one or more objects included in the user content (Paragraphs 0080, 0094). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use one or more convolutional neural network-based object recognition techniques since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “implementing object recognition techniques to determine features of at least one of image content or video content and then performing an analysis of the features with respect to images and/or video of a number of locations to determine a location depicted in the user content does not correspond to commercial interactions including 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 advertising of the claim language is accomplished through the object recognition now incorporated into the claim language. Therefore, the standard 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 “Ramkumar simply describes determining features of an object in order to determine whether the object matches a particular product. Ramkumar does not provide any teaching or suggestion directed to determining ... that the user content corresponds to a location based on an analysis of 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." However, as explained in the rejection above, Ramkumar teaches determining objects using object recognition, and determining if those objects match a product (image content), the product being associated with a plurality of locations through location tagging (Figure 9, reference 908). Each stored product has been previously associated with a location through image tagging. Ramkumar then teaches that, based on the analysis, the object corresponds to a stored product (Figure 9, reference 906), and then is tagged with a current location of a plurality of locations (Figure 9, reference 908). Therefore, Ramkumar does indeed appear to meet all the required claim limitations as currently written.
Applicant argues “Fig. 6a of Chang merely describes that [t]he additional punch card parameter 610 notifies the user 110 of an additional activity that may be engaged in to earn punches towards the identified reward (Chang, column 20, lines 65-67), but provides no teaching or suggestion specifically directed to determining ... that user activity relating to a promotion corresponds to a visit to the location." However, Chang teaches that a promotion corresponds to a visit to a location matching a required location. Examiner draws further reference to Column 9 Line 48 – Column 10 Line 5, in which location is a factor used to determine a promotion. Therefore, Chang does indeed appear to meet all the required claim limitations as currently written.
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 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