Status of Claims
1. This is a Final office action in response to communication received on 10/02/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Next using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidances (hereinafter 2019 PEG) the rejection as follows has been applied.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-12 are a method; claims 13-18 are an apparatus; and claims 19-20 are a non-transitory CRM. Thus, each claim 1-20, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1-20 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of receiving, by a potential consumer, advertising data comprising an item associated with a merchant in proximity to the user which is certain methods of organizing human activity (but for its implementation in network based environment - which is considered further under prong two and step 2B analysis as set forth below).
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-20 at least are computing device, beacon broadcasts comprising beacon identifier which are associated with a first party item, a first party computing system, a sensor identifier, receiving/transmitting data to/from the computing device capable of displaying received ads (claim 1), additionally per claim 13 user computing device, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the user computing device to perform operations, additionally per claim 19 one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computing devices cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising, receiving, by the user computing device via one or more sensors of the user computing device, movement data associated with a user of the user computing device (claim 6), radio signal transmitters comprising radio signal packets (claims 9-10), signal strength (claims 11-12), user device running a software application (claims 16-18).
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1, 5, 7, 9, 18, and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device merely sending/receiving data over a network, note receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Captured or gathered data via one or more sensor(s) is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is transmission of content e.g. ad based on information that the user provided (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide personalized marketing content such as ads, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of receiving, by a potential consumer, advertising data comprising an item associated with a merchant in proximity to the user (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1-20, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of receiving, by a potential consumer, advertising data comprising an item associated with a merchant in proximity to the user - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here user's receives beacon identifier associated with a merchant store which are communicated to a first party associated with the merchant to receive one or more ads];
(ii) (a) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014), (b) Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53, (c) further to obtain user’s data via beacon and sensors note (1) US 11,146,522 See col 9 lines 51-57; col 20 lines 20-28 note “cameras 512 may operate to provide stereo images of the environment, the user, or other objects. For example, an image from the camera 516 disposed above the display 514 may be accessed and used to generate stereo-image data corresponding to a face of a user. This stereo-image data may then be used for facial recognition, user identification, gesture recognition, gaze tracking, and other uses. In some implementations, a single camera 516 may be disposed above the display 514.”; (2) US9877212 col 7 lines 51-64 note "The beacon integration system can also provide reports to analyze mobile user device movement inside the store 100, specifically tracking movement behavior of users with portable communication devices related to defined sites and zone regions. The reports enable sophisticated analysis of the site's customer data, such as movement patterns, site traffic, and owner preferences. Reports can include details, such as the following: the average number of users in a zone at any specified time; the average number of users in the site at any specified time; how long the users stay in a particular zone; how long the users remain in the site; how many users enter the site, or a particular zone on any specified date; and the number of new users, versus previous users, that enter the site on any particular day or time"; and (3) US2016/0019603 see [0048] An exemplary tracking capability may determine/categorize the user's behavior as a browse, gaze, engage, purchase, or abandon. A browse behavior simply means that the user has walked by a particular beacon 312 at a particular pace (e.g., is within the proximity of a beacon 312 for a defined period of time). A gaze behavior is when the user has stopped (e.g., a consistent signal strength) for a period of time within proximity of a beacon 312 but not enough time to purchase. An engage behavior signifies that the user 132 has looked at a variety of products in the aisle within the physical proximity of the beacon 312 and stayed for some period of time (e.g., consistent strong signal strength for a defined period of time). A purchase behavior signifies that the beacon 312 and user device 132 may have been used to complete a purchase (e.g., touched a mobile device/smart phone 132 to the beacon to complete a purchase transaction). An abandon behavior indicates the user device 132 was within the range of the beacon but walked by it quickly (e.g., on the way to a different section/area of the store). [similarly here beacon identifiers are received by consumer device and user interaction tracked via one or more sensors within a store]; and
(iii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here ad(s) is/are displayed on consumer device].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2)as being clearly anticipated by Wagner et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0171486) referred to hereinafter as Wagner in view of Shi et al. (Patent No.: US10,459,103) referred to hereinafter as Shi.
As per claims 1, 13, and 19, Wagner discloses
as per claim 1, a computer-implemented method, comprising (see [0015]):
as per claim 13, a user computing device, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the user computing device to perform operations comprising (see [0015]):
as per claim 19, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computing devices cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising (see [0333]):
a) receiving, by a user computing device, a plurality of beacon broadcasts, the plurality of beacon broadcasts comprising one or more beacon identifiers corresponding to one or more first party beacons within a physical location associated with a merchant (paragraphs 558, 564 "the beacon is a transmitter that transmits a unique identifier/identifying information to a consumer's mobile device, serving as a signal that kicks off activity of a mobile application to execute an event associated with that beacon when the mobile device comes into proximity of the beacon." and 577, "the mobile application 7501 can detect 8601 a beacon 7503 by presence of a beacon broadcast 7505");
b) detecting, by the user computing device, a triggering event associated with at least one of the one or more beacon identifiers, the at least one beacon identifier being associated with a first party item (paragraphs 333, 353, 355, 533, 566, 571, 577 "and subsequently execute an event after informing 7507 a server 7509", 602);
c) generating, by the user computing device, a user communication for a first party computing system associated with the merchant, wherein the user communication the at least one beacon identifier […] (paragraphs 336, 564 "the mobile application communicates with the server to perform an action, the action being influenced by the awareness that the mobile application has been in proximity to the beacon that sent the unique identifier.", 571);
d) receiving, by the user computing device, a first party advertising communication comprising data indicative of the first party item associated with the at least one beacon identifier (paragraph 529, 571 "presenting other location based content (including advertisements)", 574); and
e) in response to the first party advertising communication, providing for display, by the user computing device, data indicative of the first party item associated with the at least one beacon identifier (paragraph 529, 532-533, 571 "presenting other location based content (including advertisements)", 574).
Wagner suggests, see 333, 602, however Wagner expressly does not teach (c*) […] and interaction data indicative of at least one physical interaction with the first party item, the interaction data associated with one or more sensors that correspond to the at least one beacon identifier. Shi teaches […] and interaction data indicative of at least one physical interaction with the first party item, the interaction data associated with one or more sensors that correspond to the at least one beacon identifier (see Figs. 2, 5, 7-9, and their associated disclosure; col 10 lines 38-48; col 11 lines 4-13; col 28 lines 15-29).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Wagner in view of Shi’s foregoing teachings with motivation to track user interaction inside a facility to improve facility operations and enhance user experience, see at least Shi col 3 line 65-col 4 line 10.
As per claim 2, Wagner in view of Shi teaches computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each respective first party beacon of the one or more first party beacons corresponds to a respective first party item presented within the physical location associated with the merchant (see [0564]).
As per claim 3, Wagner in view of Shi teaches computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the first party item associated with the at least one beacon identifier is disposed within the physical location associated with the merchant, and wherein the at least one beacon identifier corresponds to a first party beacon within a proximity to the first party item associated with the at least one beacon identifier (see [0564]).
As per claim 4, Wagner in view of Shi teaches computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the triggering event is based, at least in part, on a threshold period of time, and wherein detecting the triggering event associated with the at least one beacon identifier comprises: receiving, by the user computing device, a beacon broadcast comprising the at least one beacon identifier at a plurality of at least partially consecutive times; determining, by the user computing device, a period of time between a first beacon broadcast comprising the at least one beacon identifier and a last beacon broadcast comprising the at least one beacon identifier; and detecting, by the user computing device, the triggering event in response to determining that the period of time achieves the threshold period of time (see 539, [0568]).
As per claim 5, Wagner in view of Shi teaches computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the user communication comprises data indicative of the period of time (see [0568]).
As per claim 6, Wagner in view of Shi computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein generating the user communication comprises: receiving, by the user computing device via one or more sensors of the user computing device, movement data associated with a user of the user computing device; determining, by the user computing device, that the movement data is received at least partially during the period of time; and generating, by the user computing device, the user communication based, at least in part, on the movement data, wherein the user communication comprises at least a portion of the movement data (see [0563]).
As per claim 7, Wagner in view of Shi teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the movement data comprises sensor data descriptive of one or more physical interactions with the first party item associated with the at least one beacon identifier (see [0563]).
As per claim 8, Wagner in view of Shi teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein method further comprises: receiving, by the user computing device, one or more additional beacon broadcasts comprising the at least one beacon identifier at one or more subsequent times to the period of time; generating, by the user computing device, one or more additional user communications for the first party computing system, wherein each additional user communication comprises an additional timestamp indicative of at least one of the one or more subsequent times; and providing, by the user computing device, the one or more additional user communications to the first party computing system (see [0560]).
As per claim 9, Wagner in view of Shi teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more first party beacons comprise one or more radio signal transmitters, and wherein the plurality of beacon broadcasts comprise a plurality of radio signal packets (see [0558]).
As per claim 10, Wagner in view of Shi teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9, each of the one or more radio signal transmitters are configured to emit a radio signal packet at a predetermined time interval (see [0558], 577).
As per claim 11, Wagner in view of Shi teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the triggering event is based, at least in part, on a threshold received signal strength indicator, and wherein detecting the triggering event associated with the at least one beacon identifier comprises: determining, by the user computing device, a respective signal strength for each of the plurality of beacon broadcasts; and detecting, by the user computing device, the triggering event in response to determining that a signal strength for a beacon broadcast comprising the at least one beacon identifier achieves the threshold received signal strength indicator (see 557, 560).
As per claim 12, Wagner in view of Shi teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the user communication comprises data indicative of the signal strength for a beacon broadcast comprising the at least one beacon identifier (see 557, 560).
As per claim 14, Wagner in view of Shi teaches the user computing device of claim 13, wherein the merchant is associated with a plurality of users, wherein the user computing device is associated with a user of the plurality of users, and wherein the user is associated with one or more user identifiers (see 333, 550, 556).
As per claim 16, Wagner in view of Shi teaches the user computing device of claim 15, wherein the user computing device is configured to run a first party software application associated with the merchant, and wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an initial first party communication comprising a request to execute the first party software application; and executing the first party software application in response to the request (see 555, 564, 574).
As per claim 17, Wagner in view of Shi teaches the user computing device of claim 16, wherein the plurality of beacon broadcasts are received in response to executing the first party software application (see 560, 564).
As per claim 18, Wagner in view of Shi teaches the user computing device of claim 16, wherein providing for display data indicative of the first party item associated with the at least one beacon identifier comprises: providing for display, data indicative of the first party item associated with the at least one beacon identifier via a user interface of the first party software application (see 564).
As per claim 20, Wagner in view of Shi teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 19, wherein the first party item is provided for display within the physical location associated with the merchant (see 564).
4. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Shi and Bunner (Pub. No.: US 2017/0272824).
As per claim 15, Wagner in view of Shi teaches the claim limitations of claim 14. Wagner in view of Shi expressly does not teach wherein the user communication comprises data indicative of at least one of the one or more user identifiers, wherein the data indicative of the at least one of the one or more user identifiers comprises a hashed user identifier, the hashed user identifier comprising a hash of at least one of the one or more user identifiers. Bunner teaches wherein the user communication comprises data indicative of at least one of the one or more user identifiers, wherein the data indicative of the at least one of the one or more user identifiers comprises a hashed user identifier, the hashed user identifier comprising a hash of at least one of the one or more user identifiers (see [0018]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Wagner in view of Shi in view of Bunner's foregoing teachings to hash identifiers with motivation to use less bandwidth while transmitting data.
Response to Remarks
5. 101: The Examiner respectfully finds the Applicant’s arguments against 101 analysis unpersuasive. The Applicant argues Step 2A collectively which is erroneous because each prong has its own analysis. Regarding prong one determination is based on abstract recitation and BRI in light of the as-filed specification, however the Applicant has argued in view of “cookie-less” data gathering which is done via sensors. However such additional elements that collect data via sensor(s) is first considered under prong two. As such, the Examiner notes that a PHOSITA based on BRI in light of the as-filed specification would squarely invoke certain methods of organizing human activity.
Next, regarding prong two, merely gathering data via one or more sensor(s) is considered insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution activity e.g. data gathering. As such, the claim as amended when “viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of receiving, by a potential consumer, advertising data comprising an item associated with a merchant in proximity to the user (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.”
Lastly per step 2B, the Applicant is reminded that the analysis is limited to one or more additional element(s) considered singularly and in-combination the updated rejection notes it was indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional to use one or more sensor(s) to gather user behavior and/or interaction data in the physical world environment.
As such, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims fail to provide any additional element(s) that can be considered significantly more when the additional element(s) considered singularly and in-combination. Therefore the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection.
Prior Art 102/103: The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s arguments are in view of filed claim amendments and are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated by amendments, note the addition of Shi to teach user interaction data gathered in a physical store via sensors. Therefore the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution, at least note the following:
*Being noted initially:
- US2016/0019603 see [0048] An exemplary tracking capability may determine/categorize the user's behavior as a browse, gaze, engage, purchase, or abandon. A browse behavior simply means that the user has walked by a particular beacon 312 at a particular pace (e.g., is within the proximity of a beacon 312 for a defined period of time). A gaze behavior is when the user has stopped (e.g., a consistent signal strength) for a period of time within proximity of a beacon 312 but not enough time to purchase. An engage behavior signifies that the user 132 has looked at a variety of products in the aisle within the physical proximity of the beacon 312 and stayed for some period of time (e.g., consistent strong signal strength for a defined period of time). A purchase behavior signifies that the beacon 312 and user device 132 may have been used to complete a purchase (e.g., touched a mobile device/smart phone 132 to the beacon to complete a purchase transaction). An abandon behavior indicates the user device 132 was within the range of the beacon but walked by it quickly (e.g., on the way to a different section/area of the store).
- US 11,146,522 See col 9 lines 51-57; col 20 lines 20-28 note "cameras 512 may operate to provide stereo images of the environment, the user, or other objects. For example, an image from the camera 516 disposed above the display 514 may be accessed and used to generate stereo-image data corresponding to a face of a user. This stereo-image data may then be used for facial recognition, user identification, gesture recognition, gaze tracking, and other uses. In some implementations, a single camera 516 may be disposed above the display 514."
*Previously noted:
- Patent No.: US 10,643,243 see Abstract note “providing promotions to consumers based on proximity to communication beacons are discussed herein. Some embodiments may provide for a system including a communication beacon and a central system. The communication beacon may be associated with a merchant and located at a merchant shop. Based on receiving consumer presence data from the communication beacon indicating that a consumer device and the communication beacon has formed a direct wireless connection, the server may be configured to provide merchant information, promotions, or other messages to the consumer device. In some embodiments, messages may be generated by the merchant and targeted to consumers based on consumer device location, consumer demographics, among other things. Furthermore, the server may provide consumer information to a merchant device to facilitate consumer service, point-of-sale, and seamless transactions and promotion redemptions”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571)270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIPEN M PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621