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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 2025 December 29 has been entered. The following is in reply to the Amendments and Arguments.
Claims amended: 1, 5
Claims cancelled: none
Claims added: none
Claims currently pending: 1-5
Response to Arguments
Applicant, in the “General Remarks” section, presents opening remarks regarding the disposition of the claims and the amendments to the claims. As no specific argument is raised in this/these section(s) with respect to the instant application, no rebuttal is required.
Applicant, in the “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101” section, argues that the “cross-verify” renders claim 1 to be directed to “a particular improvement in the capabilities of a computer”. Examiner disagrees to this notion as the steps of scanning metadata, using GPS telemetry and cross-verifying, are not per se, computer elements. The speed of the processing of the computer is not improved by the claimed invention, but rather, the computer elements are purposed towards implementing the abstract idea. The computer elements, as identified in the grounds of rejection presented herein, are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Applicant then argues, on page 5, that the “concrete technological implementation” that involves “time-based and location-based server-side verification within an activated PRP (Passive Reward Period)”. Applicant, further on page 5, refers to USPTO’s 2019 Eligibility Guidance, and argues that the use of GPS telemetry amount to more than an instruction to ‘apply it on a computer’. Again, Examiner disagrees to this notion as the abstract idea is to reward users for secondary users viewing a product during a time period and at a location. Prior to the invention being filed, computers were understood to be able to gather information such as time and location and perform calculations on data. As such, the computer elements merely implement the abstract idea at the level of “apply it”. The problem of rewarding users for presenting products at particular locations and times is not a “computer-centric problem” as Applicant asserts. This problem exists without computer implementation and employing well-understood, routine, and conventional computer elements, specified at a high level of generality, does not render the claims into a solution to a problem within the computers themselves.
Applicant, in the “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103” section, argues that Systrom does not disclose that the first user is a “product owner”. This argument is unpersuasive as Systrom makes explicit that the user is an owner of the image in at least 0020, 0024 and the surrounding several paragraphs. The claims are broadly written and do not require more than that the user owns a product that can later be scanned by a second user. Furthermore, “product owners” and “mobile application users” are not exclusive entities within Systrom. Examiner recommends adding further detail to the claimed invention to further distance the claims from the prior art.
Applicant, in the “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103” section, argues that Celikyilmaz “does not disclose a PRU as one of the product owners and issuing rewards to the PRU based on both distance and PRP state at the time of an ARU scan”. Applicant appears to be arguing under the belief that the entirety of Celikyilmaz is incorporated into the combination of System, in view of Kim, in view of Ceylikyilmaz. This is not the case. Only the technique of verifying, for the purposes of transferring/verifying payments, a position to be close to a transaction terminal for the purposes of authenticating the transaction is utilized from Celikyilmaz. Thus, the reference does not need to disclose the entirety of the limitation(s) in question. As such, the grounds of rejection are maintained herein, albeit updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because 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.
Step 1: Claims 1-5 are directed towards a method. Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A - Prong One: As per MPEP 2106.04, Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.
Claim 1 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea.):
A method for providing artificial intelligence recognition and location-based rewards and incentives for product owners and mobile application users, comprising: registering a PRU (Passive Rewards User) as one of the product owners and activating a PRP (Passive Reward Period);
an ARU (Active Rewards User) as one of the mobile application users scanning a product and receiving a reward;
and a LMS (Location Matching Server) performing cross-verification whether the PRU is within a predefined distance from the product scanned by the ARU and issuing a reward.
The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2A - Prong Two and Step 2B). The claims recite the abstract idea of rewarding users for viewing advertising products which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The Remaining Claims: The dependent claims recite the additional elements of “mobile device”, “image recognition AI server”.
The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments: taking a photo of the product (claims 2, 4, 5), identifying products within the photo (claims 2, 4, 5). Therefore, the identified claims fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two determines if the claim(s) recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As for the additional elements of: “LMS (Location Matching Server)”, “mobile device”, and an “image recognition AI server”. To be patent-eligible, the elements additional to the identified abstract idea must amount to more than "an instruction to apply the abstract idea . . . using some unspecified, generic computer" to render the claim patent-eligible. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 226 (2014). Here, Applicant's Specification broadly describes support for well-known generic computer elements in 0096-0102. It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. Therefore, the claims amount to no more than a mere method, system, and/or computer program product to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As for the additional element(s) of: “image recognition AI server”. The gathering of data represents insignificant extra-solution activity that comprises mere data gathering. The additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As for the additional element(s): “image recognition AI server” corresponds closely to electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition) and applying "machine learning" or “AI” at a high level of generality represents performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Machine learning is well-understood, routine and conventional as exemplified in "Approaches to Machine Learning" by Langley et al. (Langley, P. and Carbonell, J.G. (1984), Approaches to machine learning. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 35: 306-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630350509 (Year: 1984))
References of Record but not Applied in the Current Grounds of Rejection
The prior art listed below is made of record as considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is not relied upon in the grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Those starred with '*' were added to this list in this Office action. Those without "*" were added in a previous Office action and are not repeated on a PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form, but are maintained herein for informational purposes only.
* DeWitt et al. (Pub. #: US 2019/0340650 A1) discloses a system for authentication of a user via a sensor node that utilizes location of the user as part of the authentication process.
Chen et al. (Pub. #: CN 111210746 A) discloses a system for verification of presentation of advertisements using location and images taken of the advertisement in order to pay for the presentation of the advertisement.
Samir et al., in “The Wanderer: Implementing markerless augmented reality with object position awareness”, discloses a system for augmented reality that indicates that numerous object detection algorithms are available for such systems.
Examiner's Note on the Format of the Prior Art Rejections
The prior art rejections below contain underlined markings of the limitations (e.g. sample limitation). The underlined portions of a claim are addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim. Examiner notes that the underlining of the claim language is not a statement that the primary reference does not teach that language, but simply that said claim language is addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Systrom et al. (Pub. #: US 2014/0278998 A1) in view of
Kim (Pub. #: US 2019/0220885 A1) in view of
Celikyilmaz et al. (Pub. #: US 2015/0356556 A1).
Claim(s) 1:
A method for providing artificial intelligence recognition and location-based rewards and incentives for product owners and mobile application users, comprising:
registering a PRU (Passive Rewards User) as one of the product owners
(Systrom discloses a system that receives a photograph from a user registered with a social networking profile in at least 0020, 0024 and the surrounding several paragraphs. Examiner notes that the "first user" or "image owner" corresponds to the PRU.)
and activating a PRP (Passive Reward Period);
an ARU (Active Rewards User) as one of the mobile application users scanning a product
(Systrom discloses a system that receives a scan from a second user in at least 0099, 0100. Systrom discloses that the “user” interface can be accessible from a “native application” in at least 0022.)
and receiving a reward; and a LMS (Location Matching Server) performing cross-verification whether the PRU is within a predefined distance from the product scanned by the ARU and issuing a reward.
(Systrom discloses using "user location data" to identify products associated with the scan in at least 0106-0108 and providing a reward to the first user based on "click-throughs by other users" (e.g., the "second user") in at least 0064 and 0065.)
As for, "and activating a PRP (Passive Reward Period);", and "and receiving a reward;": Systrom does not appear to specify activating a passive reward period and does not appear to specify providing rewards to the "Active Rewards User". However, Systrom discloses establishing a "promotional period" for advertisements in at least 0085 and Kim teaches a technique for rewarding a user after scanning a product with a camera in at least 0045-0058 and 0071-0073.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rewarding of users for tagging products in images taken and shared by a user as disclosed by Systrom with the technique of rewarding users for scanning products in real life (or Augmented Reality) as taught by Kim in order to incentivize users to scan products encountered in the world. Motivation to combine Systrom with Kim derives from both references pertaining to rewarding users for interacting with advertisements and incentivize users to interact with read-world products (Kim: 0003-0005).
As for, “whether the PRU is within a predefined distance from the product scanned by the ARU”: Systrom does not appear to specify verifying that the first user (i.e., PRU) is within a predefined distance from the product scanned by the second user (i.e., the ARU) in order to determine that the first user is due a reward. However, Celikyilmaz discloses a system for conducting transactions with a technique wherein the merchant, which is akin to the first user, has their position verified to be close to a transaction terminal for the purposes of authenticating the transaction in at least 0131-0133. Examiner notes that presenting a user with an award by authenticating the user in some manner is very much in the vein of conducting a transaction with the same user as in Celikyilmaz.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rewarding of users for tagging products in images taken and shared by a user as disclosed by Systrom, in view of Kim, with the technique of authenticating a user for a transaction based on the user's location being near a transaction terminal as taught by Celikyilmaz in order to authenticate the first user (i.e. the PRU). Motivation to combine Systrom, in view of Kim, with Celikyilmaz derives from the desire to provide payments to authorized users (Celikyilmaz: 0199-0202).
Claim(s) 2:
the step of registering the PRU and activating the PRP comprises: taking a photo of the product using the PRU's mobile device; and an image recognition Al server providing product identification information for the product.
(System discloses a user taking a photo and using a "machine vision and/or machine learning technique to automatically identify a product or brand represented in the image" in at least 0032 and 0033.)
Claim(s) 3:
the step of registering the PRU and activating the PRP comprises: sending a timestamp indicating the start time of the PRP and the PRU's activation request to the LMS;
and providing the PRU's location to the LMS.
(Systrom discloses providing "location data" along with an image uploaded by the first user in at least 0033, 0038, and 0043.)
As for, "sending a timestamp indicating the start time of the PRP and the PRU's activation request to the LMS;": Systrom does not appear to specify sending a timestamp for activation of a validity period (i.e., PRP). However, Celikyilmaz discloses a technique for validating transactions wherein a message with a user's location and a timestamp is sent to a portal in order to authenticate a merchant (i.e., the PRU) to initiate transactions in at least 0138-0146.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rewarding of users for tagging products in images taken and shared by a user as disclosed by Systrom, in view of Kim, with the technique of rewarding authenticating user's for subsequent transactions based on a user's location and timestamp information as taught by Celikyilmaz. Motivation to combine Systrom, in view of Kim, with Celikyilmaz derives from the desire to provide payments to authorized users (Celikyilmaz: 0199-0202).
Claim(s) 4:
the step of the ARU scanning a product and receiving a reward comprises: an image recognition Al server providing product information for the product identified by the ARU's mobile device;
(Systrom discloses a system that receives a scan from a second user in at least 0099, 0100. Systrom further discloses that the second user's photographs may be processed utilizing "machine vision and/or machine learning techniques to identify the product" in at least 0108.)
and the ARU receiving a reward.
As for, "and the ARU receiving a reward": Systrom does not appear to specify providing rewards to the "Active Rewards User". However, Kim teaches a technique for rewarding a user after scanning a product with a camera in at least 0045-0058 and 0071-0073.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rewarding of users for tagging products in images taken and shared by a user as disclosed by Systrom with the technique of rewarding users for scanning products in real life (or Augmented Reality) as taught by Kim in order to incentivize users to scan products encountered in the world. Motivation to combine Systrom with Kim derives from both references pertaining to rewarding users for interacting with advertisements and incentivize users to interact with read-world products (Kim: 0003-0005).
Claim(s) 5:
the step of the LMS performing cross-verification and issuing a reward comprises: the ARU scanning the product with a mobile device, and the image recognition Al server identifying the product;
(Systrom discloses a system that receives a scan from a second user in at least 0099, 0100. Systrom further discloses that the second user's photographs may be processed utilizing "machine vision and/or machine learning techniques to identify the product" in at least 0108.)
cross-verifying whether the PRU is within a predefined distance from the product scanned by the ARU,
based on the PRU being in the POD (Product Ownership Database) and PRP, by the LMS; and if it is confirmed to be within the predefined distance and inside the activated PRP, issuing a reward to the PRU in the POD.
As for, "cross-verifying whether the PRU is within a predefined distance from the product scanned by the ARU,", and "based on the PRU being in the POD (Product Ownership Database) and PRP, by the LMS; and if it is confirmed to be within the predefined distance and inside the activated PRP, issuing a reward to the PRU in the POD.": Systrom does not appear to specify verifying that the first user (i.e., PRU) is within a predefined distance from the product scanned by the second user (i.e., the ARU) in order to determine that the first user is due a reward. However, Celikyilmaz discloses a system for conducting transactions wherein the merchant, which is akin to the first user, has their position verified to be close to a transaction terminal for the purposes of authenticating the transaction in at least 0131-0133. Examiner notes that presenting a user with an award by authenticating the user in some manner is very much in the vein of conducting a transaction with the same user as in Celikyilmaz.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rewarding of users for tagging products in images taken and shared by a user as disclosed by Systrom, in view of Kim, with the technique of authenticating a user for a transaction based on the user's location being near a transaction terminal as taught by Celikyilmaz in order to authenticate the first user (i.e. the PRU). Motivation to combine Systrom, in view of Kim, with Celikyilmaz derives from the desire to provide payments to authorized users (Celikyilmaz: 0199-0202).
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 SCOTT SNIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-9604. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 9:00-4:30 Mountain (11:00-6:30 Eastern).
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 at (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.
/S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621