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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “claims involve specific technical components such as sensors that actively collect data associated with offline data transactions, an application database from which applications are retrieved, and a user interface for displaying recommendations”, recite a practical application and improve the functioning of the computer and/or improve another technology or technical field which is achieved by through the specific technical features, such as collecting, by sensors of the mobile device, sensor data including transaction information relating to the offline data transactions, and detecting products transacted for via the offline data transactions based on that transaction information.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This is a problem at the abstract layer of organizing human activities, not one borne out of technology. The problems noted in Specification do not highlight any failures of modern computers. These are business implementation problems and do not set forth any deficiencies that are particular to computer capabilities or any other technology. "In sum, 'software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself." Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (emphasis added).
These elements are all abstract and when viewed in combination only amount to applying the abstract idea on generic computers. "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added).
The sensor is merely used for its routine and conventional purpose—to collect data. The gathering and analysis of that data is part of the abstract idea. The "realm of abstract ideas" includes "collecting information, including when limited to particular content." Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added). Courts have also "treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Id. The sensor is not improved in any way by the invention, and is merely used as a tool to gather information.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11 recite a system. Claim 16 recites a method.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 16 recites the abstract idea of providing recommendations based on purchasing activities of a user. This idea is described by the following steps:
A method comprising:
receiving indications of offline data transactions, the indications including transaction information relating to the offline data transactions;
collecting sensor data including the transaction information relating to the offline data transactions;
detecting, based on the transaction information, one or more of a quantity of a product transacted for via the offline data transactions exceeding a quantity threshold, a number of the offline data transactions for the product exceeding a frequency threshold, and an amount of data resources of the offline data transactions attributable to the product exceeding a data amount threshold;
retrieving, in response to the detecting, an application that supports online data transactions for the product or a similar product that is similar to the product; and
displaying a recommendation for the application to the user.
Claims 1 and 11 recite equivalent limitations.
This idea falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is directed towards commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., offering applications based on purchasing histories).
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1, 11 and 16 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 recite a processor, a memory; and one or more sensors of the mobile device. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraph 068) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
The sensor is merely used for its routine and conventional purpose—to collect data. The gathering and analysis of that data is part of the abstract idea. The "realm of abstract ideas" includes "collecting information, including when limited to particular content." Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added). Courts have also "treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Id. The sensor is not improved in any way by the invention, and is merely used as a tool to gather information.
Claim 11 additionally recites using optical character recognition algorithm. However, the optical character recognition algorithm is recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to perform the process (i.e., detecting a product transacted offline) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 1, 11 and 16 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 11 and 16 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 16
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of:
receiving, by a mobile device, indications of offline data transactions, the indications including transaction information relating to the offline data transactions;
collecting, by one or more sensors of the mobile device, sensor data including the transaction information relating to the offline data transactions;
detecting, by the mobile device and based on the transaction information, one or more of a quantity of a product transacted for via the offline data transactions exceeding a quantity threshold, a number of the offline data transactions for the product exceeding a frequency threshold, and an amount of data resources of the offline data transactions attributable to the product exceeding a data amount threshold;
retrieving, by the mobile device and in response to the detecting, an application that supports online data transactions for the product or a similar product that is similar to the product from an application database; and
displaying, in a user interface of the mobile device, a recommendation for the application to be downloaded or opened on the mobile device.
Regarding claims 1 and 11
Claims 1 and 11 are each parallel in subject matter to the feature noted above with respect to claim 16 and are allowable for reasons similar to those provided for claim 16.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights