Detailed Action
Status of Claims
This action is a non-final, first office action in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 07/05/2024.
Claims 1 – 14 & 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/05/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 – 14 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 13 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Claim 14 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claim 16 is directed to a product (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claims 1 – 14 & 16 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 14, & 16 (i.e., by referencing claim 14) substantially recite: “acquire an image from… a user located in a facility; generate, by processing the image, first position information indicating a position of the user; generate, by using the first position information, route information indicating a route that the user is to move; select, by using the first position information, advertisement information to be provided to the user; and transmit… the route information and the advertisement information being selected.” Independent claim 13 substantially recites: “acquire the advertisement information and the route information; and display the advertisement information… and also display a mark… by using a current position of a user and the route information, the mark indicating a direction in which the user is to move, acquire an image from… a user located in a facility; generate, by processing the image, first position information indicating a position of the user; generate, by using the first position information, route information indicating a route that the user is to move; select, by using the first position information, advertisement information to be provided to the user; and transmit… the route information and the advertisement information being selected.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass providing relevant advertisements to a customer. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as well as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 13 – 14, & 16, as a whole, amount to merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent). Claim 1 recites the additional generic computer element of “at least one memory storing instructions,” “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions,” and “a terminal held by a user.” Claim 13 recites the additional generic computer elements of “terminal apparatus,” “at least one memory configured to store instructions,” “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions,” “information provision apparatus,” “on a screen,” “at least one memory storing instructions,” and “terminal held by a user.” Claim 14 recites the additional generic computer elements of “a computer executing” and “terminal held by a user.” Claim 16 recites the additional generic computer elements of “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program” and “computer.”
The additional elements of “at least one memory storing instructions,” “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions,” “a terminal held by a user,” “terminal apparatus,” “at least one memory configured to store instructions,” “information provision apparatus,” “on a screen,” “at least one memory storing instructions,” “a computer executing,” “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program,” and “computer” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Figure. 9, showing the additional elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements as recited in claims 1, 13 – 14, & 16 of: “at least one memory storing instructions,” “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions,” “a terminal held by a user,” “terminal apparatus,” “at least one memory configured to store instructions,” “information provision apparatus,” “on a screen,” “at least one memory storing instructions,” “a computer executing,” “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program,” and “computer” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 12 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional claim 2 element of “wherein the image is captured in a facility” is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), while the additional claim 2element of “acquire, from the terminal, second position information indicating a position of the user at a time of entry in the facility,” when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional claim 5 element of “wherein the image includes a plurality of frame images” is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3 – 4, 8, 11 – 14, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dupont et al. (US 9147203 B1).
As per claim 1, Dupont discloses an information provision apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions (C 3, L 28 – 36 & 40 – 49); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (C 3, L 26 – 38 & 53 – 55) to:
• acquire an image from a terminal held by a user located in a facility (C 6, L 46 – 54, “the participant may scan a bar code or capture an image of some other feature of the indoor space associated with a known location (for example, a picture of a door, sign, monument, or some other feature associated with a location in the indoor space).”);
• generate, by processing the image, first position information indicating a position of the user (C 6, L 46 – 59, identifying a location based on the captured image of the indoor space.);
• generate, by using the first position information, route information indicating a route that the user is to move (C 7, L 1 – 10 and C 8, L 14 – 31, generating a floor plan map on the user device.);
• select, by using the first position information, advertisement information to be provided to the user (C 3, L 1 – 4; C 7, L 34 – 57; C 7, L 61 – 64; C 8, L 47 – 59; selecting and sending advertisements to the user device based on the user’s movement through the indoor space.)
• and transmit, to the terminal, the route information and the advertisement information being selected (C 7, L 34 – 57 & 61 – 64 as well as C 8, L 14 – 31 & 47 – 59; sending advertisements with navigation information to the advertised item to the user device based on the user’s movement through the indoor space).
As per claim 3, Dupont discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further discloses:
• wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to further select advertisement information by using a time or a date (C 8, L 32 – 45, using a time to select specific discounts for particular groups of users in order to evenly distribute crowds.).
As per claim 4, Dupont discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further discloses:
• wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to further select the advertisement information by using an object captured in the image (C 6, L 46 – 59, identifying a location based on a captured image of the indoor space, which, as per C 3, L 1 – 4; C 7, L 34 – 57; C 7, L 61 – 64; C 8, L 47 – 59 is used to selecting advertisements to the user device based on the user’s identified location within the indoor space.).
As per claim 8, Dupont discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further discloses:
• wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to select the advertisement information by using at least one of attribution information and preference information that relate to the user (C 9, L 7 – 15; C 10, L 7 – 54, selecting ads based on preference and attribute information of the user gleaned from determining the user’s intent.).
As per claim 11, Dupont discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further discloses:
• wherein the advertisement information relates to a shop in the facility (C 2, L 66 – C 3, L 8, ads selected for shops within a mall at the user’s current location; C 6, L 19 – 22, “the floor plan may identify stores, aisles, shelving and a location of items for purchase in the indoor space 310”; C 10, L 44 – 54, “ An advertisement can be information that includes, for example, a sale price or coupon, a brand name of an item, user ratings, and an item's location with directions to and within a merchant's store” within the shopping mall.);
• the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: when information indicating that the advertisement information is selected is acquired from the terminal, add a shop corresponding to the advertisement information as a transit point, and generate the route information being updated; and transmit the route information being updated to the terminal (C 7, L 61 – C 8, L 31, “A location mechanism 652, such as a button or selectable feature on the display 652, may be displayed in association with the advertisement 650. By activating the location mechanism 652, the participant may be provided with a location of the advertised item. For example, the location mechanism can be a programmable radio button 652 made visible on the display 163 that can be employed by touching the display screen 163. Upon activating the location mechanism 652, a display mapping a path to the item may be presented to the participant, for example, as shown in FIG. 7,” comprising a route to the location of the advertised item. As per at least C 9, L 38 – 39 and C 11, L 51 – 54, the floor plan with routing is provided to the user device from the server.);
As per claim 12, Dupont discloses the limitations of claim 11. Dupont further discloses wherein, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
• when the route information being updated is generated, select the advertisement information being new; and transmit the new advertisement information being selected to the terminal together with the route information being updated (C 7, 61 – 64 & C 8, L 4 – 31, new ads are selected as the user progresses along the provided floor plan, along with a path to the item associated with the new ads.).
As per claim 13, Dupont discloses a terminal apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (C 4, L 45 – 60; C 5, L 29 – 35; “Client device 171”) to:
• acquire the advertisement information and the route information from an information provision apparatus (C 4, L 36 – 45; C 5, L 40 – 46; C 7, L 3 – 5, 34 – 57, & 61 – 64; C 8, L 14 – 31 & 47 – 59; server sending advertisements with navigation information to the advertised item to the user device based on the user’s movement through the indoor space. Also see C 9, L 38 – 39 and C 11, L 51 – 54, the floor plan with routing is provided to the user device from the server.).
• and display the advertisement information on a screen, and also display a mark on the screen by using a current position of a user and the route information, the mark indicating a direction in which the user is to move (C 7, L 34 – 57 & 61 – 64 as well as C 8, L 14 – 31 & 47 – 59; displaying advertisements with navigation information to the advertised item to the user device based on the user’s movement through the indoor space.);
•wherein the information provision apparatus comprises: at least one memory storing instructions (C 3, L 28 – 36 & 40 – 49); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (C 3, L 26 – 38 & 53 – 55) to:
• acquire an image from a terminal held by a user located in a facility (C 6, L 46 – 54, “the participant may scan a bar code or capture an image of some other feature of the indoor space associated with a known location (for example, a picture of a door, sign, monument, or some other feature associated with a location in the indoor space).”);
• generate, by processing the image, first position information indicating a position of the user (C 6, L 46 – 59, identifying a location based on the captured image of the indoor space.);
• generate, by using the first position information, route information indicating a route that the user is to move (C 7, L 1 – 10 and C 8, L 14 – 31, generating a floor plan map on the user device.);
• select, by using the first position information, advertisement information to be provided to the user (C 3, L 1 – 4; C 7, L 34 – 57; C 7, L 61 – 64; C 8, L 47 – 59; selecting and sending advertisements to the user device based on the user’s movement through the indoor space.)
• and transmit, to the terminal, the route information and the advertisement information being selected (C 7, L 34 – 57 & 61 – 64 as well as C 8, L 14 – 31 & 47 – 59; sending advertisements with navigation information to the advertised item to the user device based on the user’s movement through the indoor space.);
As per claim 14, see the above relevant rejection of claim 1. Dupont additionally discloses an information provision method (C 1, L 28 – 39 & Claim 1 of Dupont) comprising, by a computer executing the steps as outlined above as per claim 1.
As per claim 16, see the above relevant rejection of claim 14 (and claim 1). Dupont additionally discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to execute the information provision method according to claim 14 (Claim 9 of Dupont & C 3, L 26 – 39 & 53 – 64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al. (US 9147203 B1) in view of Bowman et al. (US 10891680 B1).
As per claim 2, Dupont discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dupont further discloses:
• wherein the image is captured in a facility (C 6, L 46 – 54, “the participant may scan a bar code or capture an image of some other feature of the indoor space associated with a known location (for example, a picture of a door, sign, monument, or some other feature associated with a location in the indoor space).” As per C 2, L 66 – C 3, L 8 and C 10, L 44 – 54, the indoor space can be a mall facility.);
To the extent to which Dupont does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Bowman teaches wherein:
• the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire, from the terminal, second position information indicating a position of the user at a time of entry in the facility (C 4, L 23 – 40, “upon arrival at a retail store,” acquiring location data from a user device indication that “that the user device 30 is at or adjacent the retail store.”);
• and determine the facility by using the second position information (C 4, L 32 – 40, identifying the facility using the location data.),
• and generate the first position information by using reference information being associated with the facility being determined (C 4, L 37 – 61, generating subsequent in-store positions by using the retrieved “corresponding retailer store layout 46” in addition to “images 24, 25 acquired by the camera 36” of the user device.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Bowman in the invention of Dupont with the motivation to advantageously provide a personalized promotion for a suggested product, as evidenced by Bowman, in C 2, L 18 – 25.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al. (US 9147203 B1) in view of Kraft (US 20160314512 A1).
As per claim 5, Dupont discloses the limitations of claim 4. To the extent to which Dupont does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Kraft teaches wherein:
• the image includes a plurality of frame images ([0015] & [0025]), a plurality of captured image frames), and at least one of the frame images being used by determining the position is not used by selecting the advertisement information ([0025], “determine the location of the customer 101 based at least in part on a background image of the specific product 102 and/or other images captured by the computing device 103. A background image containing in-store features can be analyzed and matched against the 3D layout/dimensions and in-store visual features of the store 101 to determine the location correlated to the captured background image or images.”; [0043], “image… data from a computing device of the customer can be analyzed and matched against predetermined patterns of the store to determine location of the customer. In some embodiments, background store features in the image data taken by the customer can be extracted and used to match a specific location in the store.”; [0047] “the device can use the images (e.g., still or video) captured from the imaging elements 504 and 510 to generate a three-dimensional simulation of the surrounding environment (e.g., a virtual reality of the surrounding environment for display on the display element of the device). Further, the device can utilize outputs from at least one of the image capture elements 504 and 510 to assist in determining the location and/or orientation of a user and in recognizing nearby persons, objects, or locations. For example, if the user is holding the device, the captured image information can be analyzed (e.g., using mapping information about a particular area) to determine the approximate location and/or orientation of the user. The captured image information may also be analyzed to recognize nearby persons, objects, or locations (e.g., by matching parameters or elements from the mapping information).” In other words, within an image, background frames distinct from a product are used to determine a location but not to select an ad.),
• or at least one of the frame images being used by selecting the advertisement information is not used by determining the position ([0021] – [0022], “customer 101 can use the computing device 103 to search for the specific product by inputting information related to the specific product 102, or taking a snapshot of the specific product 102.” In other words, when a user provides a manually-captured product image, it is used to generate an ad and not to provide location information.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Kraft in the invention of Dupont with the motivation to improve the accuracy and processing time needed to provide relevant product information, as evidenced by Kraft, in [0022].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al. (US 9147203 B1) in view of Ward et al. (US 20160094880 A1).
As per claim 6, Dupont discloses the limitations of claim14. To the extent to which Dupont does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Ward teaches wherein:
• the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to further select the advertisement information by using a moving direction of the user (abstract, [0002], [0006], [0020], [0097], [0100], “advertisements or recommended content may be selected based on the potential destinations of the user, how quickly the user is traveling, the direction the user is traveling.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Ward in the invention of Dupont with the motivation to provide “advertisements or recommend content to a user that is contextually relevant to the destination of the user,” as evidenced by Ward, in [0002].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al. (US 9147203 B1) in view of Short et al. (US 20170068872 A1).
As per claim 7, Dupont discloses the limitations of claim14. To the extent to which Dupont does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Short teaches wherein:
• the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to select the advertisement information by using at least one of clothing of a person captured in the image and air temperature ([0040], [0043] – [0044], [0051] – [0052], & [0054] – [0057], after receiving an image of “a hat that user 102 spotted another guest wearing,” the system selects “a five dollar coupon, e.g., for a restaurant, and provide instructions for presentation of a recommendation to go to the third closest location that offers the product to receive the coupon.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Short in the invention of Dupont with the motivation to facilitate “delivery of the product to the guest at the selected location and time,” as evidenced by Short, in [0064].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al. (US 9147203 B1) in view of Kahn et al. (US 20150168150 A1).
As per claim 9, Dupont discloses the limitations of claim 8. To the extent to which Dupont does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Kahn teaches wherein:
• the facility is a stop of public transportation ([0004], “a local airport, an airport in Rome”);
• and the attribution information includes a purpose of movement using the public transportation by the user (Abstract, [0017], [0021] – [0022], [0026] – [0028], selecting ads based on a travel intent (attribute) of the user.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Kahn in the invention of Dupont with the motivation to provide “a recommendation based upon a predicted travel intent,” as evidenced by Kahn, in [0003].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al. (US 9147203 B1) in view of Jenkins et al. (US 20090156182 A1).
As per claim 10, Dupont discloses the limitations of claim 8. To the extent to which Dupont does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Jenkins teaches wherein:
• the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to select the advertisement information by using a number of visits to the facility by the user ([0054], “the recommendation may be based on a number of visits to the location”; [0039], [0041] & [0051], a recommendation is a suggestion to purchase “physical or digital merchandise”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Jenkins in the invention of Dupont with the motivation to “determine current interests of the user and generate the recommendation accordingly,” as evidenced by Jenkins, in [0035].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights