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 .
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 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.
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 claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 12-17 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Claims 18-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media, which is an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of determining items the user is interested in and initiating an action based on the interest level:
receiving a user communication from a user, wherein the user communication comprises a sensor identifier and a user identifier;
determining a user-item association based, at least in part, on the sensor identifier and user identifier;
determining an item interest level for the at least one item based, at least in part, on the user-item association;
initiating an action based, at least in part, on the item interest level.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for determining items the user is interested in and initiating an action based on the interest level. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to receiving a user-item association, an interest level, and initiating an action based on the interest level, which is a sales and marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Returning to representative claim 1, Examiner acknowledges that claim 1 recites additional elements, such as:
a first party computing system comprising one or more computing devices;
a user device;
wherein the sensor identifier corresponds to a physical device associated with at least one item;
Taken individually and as a whole, claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than apply the judicial exception on a general purpose computer.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite a first party computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a user device, and a physical device associated with at least one item, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality. The first party computing system is merely recited in passing in the claims as performing the steps of the claims without any further details. The specification discloses the first party computing system as including one or more processors and a memory to store instructions to perform the operations of the claims (specification: [0150]), and including one or more beacons or physical sensors (specification: [0136]). The physical devices associated with the item, or the sensors, are disclosed as being any number and/or type of sensor, such as image sensors, audio sensors, radio sensors, tactile sensors, etc. (specification: [0137]). It is evident that the first party computing system and the physical devices are any generic computer or sensor to provide a general link to a computing environment and provide information for the abstract idea. The user device and computing devices are also disclosed with a high level of generality, being any of a mobile phone, personal laptop, smart watch, and/or any other device associated with a customer (specification: [0147]). The user device merely represents the user in a computing environment. The additional elements of the claims are merely generic devices that are applied to the abstract idea to perform the abstract idea in a computing environment, such as to provide a general link to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 12 (system): Claim 12 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 12 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18 non-transitory computer-readable media): Claim 18 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 18 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the algorithm of determining items the user is interested in and initiating an action based on the interest level. Thus, each of claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements (e.g., a beacon timestamp (claim 2); a first party software application (claim 14); a user interface (claim 16)) are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stern (US 20210201362 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Stern discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a first party computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a user communication from a user device associated with a user, wherein the user communication comprises a sensor identifier and a user identifier, wherein the sensor identifier corresponds to a physical device associated with at least one item; Stern discloses the user device communicating with the product tag affixed to the store items, and then communicating the interaction between the user device and product tag to the merchant hub and merchant server (Stern: [0055]; see also: [0006]; [0021]; [0038]). The product tags affixed to the store items identifying the item and the user device providing identification information (Stern: [0040]; see also: [0030]; [0033]).
determining, by the first party computing system, a user-item association based, at least in part, on the sensor identifier and the user identifier; Stern discloses associating a user with a an item by storing their interactions with the item, the interactions determined from the product tag and customer identification (Stern: [0056]; see also: [0006]; [0021]; [0039]; [0065]; [0076]).
determining, by the first party computing system, an item interest level for the at least one item based, at least in part, on the user-item association; Stern discloses determining a metric associated with the user interactions to determine a degree of user interaction (Stern: [0057-0058]; see also: [0032]; [0040]).
initiating, by the first party computing system, an action based, at least in part, on the item interest level. Stern discloses determining a follow-on action regarding the user and the item based on the metrics and a threshold (Stern: [0059]; see also: [0032]; [0040]; [0057]).
Regarding Claims 12 and 18: Claims 12 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claims 12 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13: Stern discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the first party computing system is associated with a merchant, wherein the at least one item is at least one of a plurality of first party items associated with a merchant. Stern discloses the merchant system being an entity that offers goods, services, and/or information, such as a retailer (Stern: [0026]), and the products are products within the merchant store (Stern: [0030]; see also: [0055]).
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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Stern (US 20210201362 A1) in view of Shibayama (US 20210334523 A1).
Regarding Claim 2: Stern discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Stern further discloses wherein determining the item interest level for the at least one item based, at least in part, on the user-item interaction further comprises:
receiving, by the first party computing system, a sensor communication from the physical device associated with the at least one item, wherein the sensor communication comprises the sensor identifier, and interaction data indicative of a physical interaction between the user and the at least one item; Stern discloses receiving communication of the product tag identifying a particular product, and determine interactions, such as the user picking up the item or carrying the item (Stern: [0055-0057]; see also: [0082]).
determining, by the first party computing system, the item interest level for the at least one item based, at least in part, on the sensor communication. Stern discloses determining a metric associated with the user interactions to determine a degree of user interaction (Stern: [0057-0058]; see also: [0032]; [0040]).
Stern does not explicitly teach a beacon timestamp; Notably, however, Stern does disclose a count of interactions over a period of time (Stern: [0061]), which would require tracking the time of interactions.
To that accord, Shibayama does teach a beacon timestamp. Shibayama teaches applying a timestamp to a detected action determined from the sensor information of a shopper (Shibayama: [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Stern disclosing the system of tracking user-item interactions to determine actions to perform for the user with the applying of a timestamp to the detected sensor information as taught by Shibayama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to verify data between various sensors to determine specific shopper actions, such as comparing two products in each hand (Shibayama: [0110]).
Regarding Claim 3: Stern in view of Shibayama discloses the limitations of claim 2 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the physical device is located relative to the at least one item within a physical location associated with a merchant corresponding to the first party computing system. Stern discloses the product tag being affixed to store items or to a shelf or display of the merchant (Stern: [0030]).
Regarding Claim 4: Stern in view of Shibayama discloses the limitations of claim 3 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the interaction data comprises sensor data descriptive of the physical interaction, wherein the sensor data is received through one or more physical sensors of the physical device. Stern discloses determining physical interactions with the item, such as picking up the item or carrying it to another location, based on the data of the user and product tag (Stern: [0055-0057]).
Regarding Claim 5: Stern in view of Shibayama discloses the limitations of claim 2 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the interaction data is indicative of an interaction time between the at least one item and the user. Stern discloses where the determined action includes a duration of time a user spent interacting with an item (Stern: [0057]; see also: [0062]).
Regarding Claim 6: Stern in view of Shibayama discloses the limitations of claim 2 above.
Stern does not explicitly teach wherein the user communication comprises a device timestamp, and wherein determining the item interest level for the at least one item based, at least in part, on the sensor communication comprises:
determining, by the first party computing system, a timestamp match based, at least in part, on the beacon timestamp and the device timestamp;
in response to the timestamp match, determining, by the first party computing system, the item interest level for the at least one item based, at least in part, on the interaction data.
Notably, however, Stern does disclose disclose a count of interactions over a period of time (Stern: [0061]), which would require tracking the time of interactions, and determining a metric associated with the user interactions to determine a degree of user interaction (Stern: [0057-0058]).
To that accord, Shibayama does teach wherein the user communication comprises a device timestamp, and wherein determining the item interest level for the at least one item based, at least in part, on the sensor communication comprises:
determining, by the first party computing system, a timestamp match based, at least in part, on the beacon timestamp and the device timestamp; Shibayama teaches matching the timestamps of various sensors (Shibayama: [0111]).
in response to the timestamp match, determining, by the first party computing system, the item interest level for the at least one item based, at least in part, on the interaction data. Shibayama teaches sending user display information to perform an action relative to a prospective purchase of an item based on identifying particular items and how the user interacted with the items determined from the matching time stamps (Shibayama: [0121]; [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Stern disclosing the system of tracking user-item interactions to determine actions to perform for the user with the matching of timestamps and determining an interest level based on the match as taught by Shibayama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to determine the specific actions of the shopper with the products, such as more detailed information of which hand was used to interact with which product (Shibayama: [0111]).
Claims 7-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Stern (US 20210201362 A1) in view of Liu (US 20140207900 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: Stern discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the user identifier comprises a hashed user identifier. Notably, however, Stern does disclose identifying user identification from the customer device (Stern: [0040]).
To that accord, Liu does teach wherein the user identifier comprises a hashed user identifier. Liu teaches hashing the user ID information (Liu: [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Stern disclosing the system of tracking user-item interactions to determine actions to perform for the user with the user identifier comprising a hashed user identifier as taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to anonymize the user identifying information (Liu: [0005]).
Regarding Claim 8: Stern in view of Liu discloses the limitations of claim 7 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the first party computing system is associated with a merchant, wherein the user is one of a plurality of first party users associated with the merchant. Stern discloses the merchant system being an entity that offers goods, services, and/or information, such as a retailer (Stern: [0026]), and where the user information is tracked and stored on the merchant server, including past and current interactions of the user and other users (Stern: [0057]; see also: [0022]; [0040]). The storing of past information and other users within the merchant server shows that the user is one of a plurality of users to are associated with the merchant.
Regarding Claim 9: Stern in view of Liu discloses the limitations of claim 8 above.
Stern further discloses receiving, by the first party computing system, first party data associated with the plurality of first party users; Stern discloses receiving identifying user identification from the customer device and receiving interaction data (Stern: [0040]; [0055]), the merchant server storing data points of interactions of the user and other users within the merchant location (Stern: [0057]).
Stern does not explicitly teach identifying, by the first party computing system, the user based, at least in part, on the hashed user identifier, the first party data, and a hashing algorithm. Notably, however, Stern does disclose identifying user identification from the customer device (Stern: [0040]).
To that accord, Liu does teach identifying, by the first party computing system, the user based, at least in part, on the hashed user identifier, the first party data, and a hashing algorithm. Liu teaches comparing the hashed user ID information to hash identifiers stored on the system (first party data) to retrieve the user profile of the user when a match is identified (Liu: [0014]; see also: [0069]). As the system is hashing the user ID information and matching hash identifiers, the system would require some kind of hashing algorithm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Stern disclosing the system of tracking user-item interactions to determine actions to perform for the user with the identifying the user based on a hashed user identifier, first party data, and a hashing algorithm as taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to anonymize the user identifying information before identifying the user at another system (Liu: [0005]).
Regarding Claim 10: Stern in view of Liu discloses the limitations of claim 9 above.
Stern further discloses the method further comprising:
receiving, by the first party computing system, user data associated with the user, the user data comprising a portion of the first party data that corresponds to the user; Stern discloses receiving user interaction information of a specific user and particular product (Stern: [0055]; see also: [0039-0040]; [0065]).
generating, by the first party computing system, a user insight based, at least in part, on the item interest level and the user data; Stern discloses determining whether the user may be purchasing items for a specific project based on the items interacted with and the metrics of the interactions (Stern: [0060]).
initiating, by the first party computing system, the action based, at least in part, on the user insight. Stern discloses a follow-on action based on the determinations of the user, such as the user purchasing items for a specific project (Stern: [0060]).
Regarding Claim 11: Stern in view of Liu discloses the limitations of claim 10 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the user data is indicative of at least one of a transaction history associated with the user or one or more user account preferences of a user account with the merchant. Stern discloses the user profile, which includes user preferences (Stern: [0070]; see also: [0057]; [0065-0066]).
Regarding Claim 19: Stern discloses the limitations of claim 18 above.
Stern further discloses the operation further comprising:
receiving first party data associated with a plurality of first party users of a merchant, the first party data comprising at least one user identifier for one or more of the plurality of first party users; Stern discloses receiving identifying user identification from the customer device and receiving interaction data (Stern: [0040]; [0055]), the merchant server storing data points of interactions of the user and other users within the merchant location (Stern: [0057]).
in response to identifying the user, receiving user data associated with the user, the user data comprising a portion of the first party data that corresponds to the user; Stern discloses using information of past interactions of the user (Stern: [0057]; see also: [0064]; [0073]; [0084]).
generating an insight for the first party user based, at least in part, on the item interest level for the at least one item and the first party data associated with the user. Stern discloses determining whether the user may be purchasing items for a specific project based on the items interacted with and the metrics of the interactions (Stern: [0060]).
Stern does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
a hashed user identifier;
identifying the user based, at least in part, on the hashed identifier, the first party data, and a hashing algorithm.
Notably, however, Stern does disclose identifying user identification from the customer device (Stern: [0040]).
To that accord, Liu does teach a method comprising:
a hashed user identifier; Liu teaches hashing the user ID information (Liu: [0014]; see also: [0069]).
identifying the user based, at least in part, on the hashed identifier, the first party data, and a hashing algorithm. Liu teaches comparing the hashed user ID information to hash identifiers stored on the system (first party data) to retrieve the user profile of the user when a match is identified (Liu: [0014]; see also: [0069]). As the system is hashing the user ID information and matching hash identifiers, the system would require some kind of hashing algorithm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Stern disclosing the system of tracking user-item interactions to determine actions to perform for the user with the hashing the user ID information and identifying the user based on a hashed user identifier, first party data, and a hashing algorithm as taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to anonymize the user identifying information before identifying the user at another system (Liu: [0005]).
Regarding Claim 20: Stern in view of Liu discloses the limitations of claim 19 above.
Stern does not explicitly teach wherein identifying the user based, at least in part, on the hashed user identifier, the first party data, and the hashing function comprises:
generating a plurality of hashed user identifiers for one or more of the plurality of first party users based, at least in part, on the hashing algorithm;
determining a user match between at least one of the plurality of hashed user identifiers and the hashed user identifier;
identifying the user based, at least in part, on the user match.
Notably, however, Stern does disclose identifying user identification from the customer device (Stern: [0040]), and here the user information is tracked and stored on the merchant server, including past and current interactions of the user and other users (Stern: [0057]).
To that accord, Liu does teach wherein identifying the user based, at least in part, on the hashed user identifier, the first party data, and the hashing function comprises:
generating a plurality of hashed user identifiers for one or more of the plurality of first party users based, at least in part, on the hashing algorithm; Liu teaches using user ID information stored on the system to generate hash identifiers (Liu: [0014]; see also: [0069]).
determining a user match between at least one of the plurality of hashed user identifiers and the hashed user identifier; Liu teaches matching the hashed user ID information with a hash identifier (Liu: [0014]; see also: [0069]).
identifying the user based, at least in part, on the user match. Liu teaches retrieving the user profile associated with the matched hash identifier (Liu: [0014]; see also: [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Stern disclosing the system of tracking user-item interactions to determine actions to perform for the user with the generating of hashed user identifiers and identifying the user based on matching the hash identifiers as taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to anonymize the user identifying information before identifying the user at another system (Liu: [0005]).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Stern (US 20210201362 A1) in view of Kostka (US 20150079942 A1).
Regarding Claim 14: Stern discloses the limitations of claim 13 above.
Stern does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
detecting a proximity of the user to a physical location associated with the merchant;
providing an initial first party communication to the user device based, at least in part, on the proximity of the user to the physical location associated with the merchant, wherein the initial first party communication comprises a request to execute a first party software application configured to run on the user device.
Notably, however, Stern does disclose detecting when a user enters or exits the retail environment (Stern: [0079]).
To that accord, Kostka does teach a method comprising:
detecting a proximity of the user to a physical location associated with the merchant; Kostka teaches detecting when a consumer device is near to the entrance of a store (Kostka: [0077]; see also: [0071]).
providing an initial first party communication to the user device based, at least in part, on the proximity of the user to the physical location associated with the merchant, wherein the initial first party communication comprises a request to execute a first party software application configured to run on the user device. Kostka teaches prompting the user to download or open the application when the user is near enough to the store (Kostka: [0077]; see also: [0022]; [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Stern disclosing the system of tracking user-item interactions to determine actions to perform for the user with the detecting a proximity to the store and requesting to execute a first party software application as taught by Kostka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to deliver store related information to the user of the products/services available in the specific store (Kostka: [0077]).
Regarding Claim 15: Stern in view of Kostka discloses the limitations of claim 14 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the physical device is one of a plurality of physical devices located relative to a plurality of first party items within the physical location, wherein each respective physical device corresponds to a respective sensor identifier, and wherein the operations further comprise: identifying the at least one item based, at least in part, on the sensor identifier. Stern discloses the product tags affixed to store items to identify and track the items throughout the store (Stern: [0030]; see also: [0037]; Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 16: Stern in view of Kostka discloses the limitations of claim 14 above.
Stern further discloses providing a first party advertising communication to the user device based, at least in part, on the item interest level, wherein the first party advertising communication is configured to cause a user interface of the first party software application to display a content item associated with the at least one item. Stern discloses providing product information for similar store items, offers, or discounts for the item interacted with by the user based on the identified metrics of the user interaction (Stern: [0061]; see also: [0041]; [0072]; [0078]).
Regarding Claim 17: Stern in view of Kostka discloses the limitations of claim 16 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the content item comprises item details for the at least one item. Stern discloses identifying and displaying product information to the user (Stern: [0072]; see also: [0041]; [0084]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892 Reference U discloses displays to present interactive advertisements based on tracking people nearby.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 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, Jeffrey 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.
/TIMOTHY J KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights