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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Positioning Means in claims 1, 15, 24-25; communications means 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 16, 17, 21,23-25. Location display means 15,21, 23-25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-2, 4-12, 15-18, 20-25 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), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-2, 4-12, 15-18, 20-25 are directed to a method. Wherein a method is a statutory classes of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1-2, 4-12, 15-18, 20-25 recite an abstract idea of identification steps, app activation steps and identification information transmission steps and provisioning steps. These claims fall under mental processes that can be performed with the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of a generic telecommunication computers.
The independent claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 15, 21, 23-25 recites the following limitations which fall under mental steps:
… at an ambient commerce premises;
detect, based on an output of the sensor at the ambient commerce premises,
engagement of an entity with a first item satisfying first predetermined criteria;
identify the entity;
determine based on account data for the identified entity, a resource parameter for
the identified entity; and
when the resource parameter satisfies second predetermined criteria, generate
a notification on an electronic device associated with the entity.
The independent claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 15, 21, 23-25 recites the following limitations which fall under “mental processes” subgrouping of an abstract idea:
Surrounding Base Station Identification Step
Mobile Communication Device Phone Number Identification Step
activating emergency position tracking apps installed on the mobile communication
devices
Base Station Identification Information Transmission Step, wherein the identification
information of the surrounding base stations identified
Specific Location Presence Mobile Communication Device Identification Step
Temporary Provision of a Mobile Short-range Wireless Communication Means Step
The independent claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 15, 21, 23-25 recites the following limitations which fall under “mental processes” subgrouping of an abstract idea:
According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), "mental processes " are abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed “conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally,” i.e., “as a person would do it by head and hand.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Courts have held A. A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally with or without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process B. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Wherein the mental process includes performance on a generic computer, performing a mental process in a computer environment or using a computer a tool to perform a mental process. Wherein the mental process contains mere instructions to implement on a computer at a high level of generality. Where further, the claim to the “Mental Processes” grouping of an abstract idea requires only a generic computer to perform well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to industry.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a
practical application because the claim as a whole merely describes the concept enabling
features based on a sensed condition at ambient commerce premises using generally recited
computer elements such as a “control unit”, “storage unit”, “communication unit” and “display unit”. These additional elements in these steps are recited at a high‐level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for enabling identification, activation and provision. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the “Mental Processes” subgrouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered
individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as
“inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of control unit”, “storage unit”, “communication unit” and “display unit” to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent‐eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daoud (US 2019/0306303) discloses methods for geolocation of mobile devices.
Daoud (US Pat. No. 10,715,653) discloses methods for geolocation of mobile devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469)295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-5pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor Jinsong Hu can be reached at (571)272-3965 where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights