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 .
Applicant filed a preliminary amendment, amending claims 6 and 7. Claims 1-7 are now pending.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of the USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), which is a two prong inquiry. In prong 1, it must be determined whether the claim recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon, and if so, in prong 2, it must be determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea in step 2a, it must additionally be determined in step 2b whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. MPEP §2106.04.
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method of operating a display, as in independent claim 1 and in the claims that depend therefrom. Such methods fall under the statutory category of “process”. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
Step 2A, prong 1. The invention is directed to a method of operating a display, which is a mental process and hence, an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are:
“Method of operating an … (1)”,
“wherein the … (1) comprises”:
“- a plurality of … (2) for displaying product and/or price information”,
“wherein each product and/or price information is represented by a content-data-set”,
“- a … (5) that is designed to provide the content-data-sets to the… (2)”,
“wherein the method comprises the step of triggering an action if the number of identical
and/or similar content-data-sets or representations thereof fulfills a criterion”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. MPEP §2106.04. Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the Mayo framework, the examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract.
STEP 2B. Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the related arts.
The instant application includes in claim 1 additional limitations to those deemed to be abstract ideas. When taken individually, these limitations are
“electronic display-system”;
“electronic display-devices”; and
“data provision system”.
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed.
Looking to MPEP §2106.05(d), based on court decisions well understood, routine and conventional computer functions or mere instruction and/or insignificant activity have been identified to include: 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); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., /no., 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPG2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink," (emphasis added)}; Insignificant intermediate or post solution activity -See Bilski v. Kappos, 581 U.S. 593, 611 -12, 95 USPQ2d 1001,1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); In Bilski referring to Flook, where Flook determined that an insignificant post-solution activity does not makes an otherwise patent ineligible claim patent eligible. In Bilski, the court added to Flook that pre-solution (such as data gathering) and insignificant step in the middle of a process (such as receiving user input) to be equally ineffective. The specification and Claim does not provide any specific process with respect to the display output that would transform the function beyond what is well understood. Like as found in Electric Power Group, Bilski, the technical process to implement the input and display functions are conventional and well understood.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well-understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for authorizing the timing of a payment and to activate a display screen based on a trigger or camera functions that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts.
Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions.
CONCLUSION. It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish).
Dependent claims 2-7, which impose additional limitations, also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-7, these dependent claims have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. The dependent claims have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, applicant is invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0156160 A1 (hereinafter “Haulk”).
With respect to claim 1, Haulk discloses
“Method of operating an electronic display-system (1)”, Haulk, abstract;
“wherein the display-system (1) comprises”: Haulk ¶ 0012;
“- a plurality of electronic display-devices (2) for displaying product and/or price information,
wherein each product and/or price information is represented by a content-data-set”, Haulk ¶¶ 0012, 0013, 0019;
“- a data provision system (5) that is designed to provide the content-data-sets to the display-
devices (2)”, Haulk ¶¶ 0012, 0013, 0019 (host computer system comprises data provision system);
“wherein the method comprises the step of triggering an action if the number of identical
and/or similar content-data-sets or representations thereof fulfills a criterion”. Haulk ¶¶ 0022, 0026 (action is triggered when a predetermined number of identical or non-identical content data sets are not correctly acknowledged; some number of content data sets are necessarily identical, even if only one; claim does not recite determining how many of the data sets are identical).
With respect to claim 4, Haulk discloses
“wherein the action includes at least one of the following”: Haulk ¶¶ 0020-0026;
“- to send an information about the fulfillment of the criterion to an entity within the display
system (1)”, Haulk ¶ 0022 (message can be resent if not property acknowledged);
“- to send an information about the fulfillment of the criterion to a communication device”, Haulk ¶¶ 0017, 0024 (human operator can be informed by RF communication);
“- trigger an optical or acoustic alarm”, Haulk ¶¶ 0017, 0024 (alarm can be provided to human operator);
“- to document the fulfillment of the criterion”, Haulk ¶ 0026 (errors are logged);
“- to influence the content displayed by at least one of the display-devices (2)”, Haulk ¶ 0027 (corrective action influences displayed content);
- to stop providing content-data-sets to the display devices (2),
- to control the display-devices (2) for which the fulfillment of the criterion was determined.
With respect to claim 7, Haulk discloses
“wherein the content-data-set represent an image as the product and/or price information”. Haulk ¶ 0019 (data file contains any type of data to be displayed on ESL, such as image of product or price).
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haulk in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0364262 A1 (hereinafter “Harris”).
With respect to claim 2, Haulk does not explicitly disclose a hash value. Harris discloses
“wherein the representation of the content-data-set is a hash-value”. Harris, abstract.
Both Haulk and Harris relate to displaying content. Haulk, abstract; Harris ¶ 0002. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the hashing feature as taught by Harris in the method of Haulk with the motivation of improving comparison accuracy. See Harris ¶ 0002.
With respect to claim 3, Harris discloses
“wherein the hash value is created by perceptual hashing”. Harris, abstract.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haulk in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0137016 A1 (hereinafter “Brown”).
With respect to claim 5, Haulk does not explicitly disclose rolling back data. Brown discloses
“wherein the control of the display devices (2) for which the fulfillment of the criterion has been determined comprises a rollback to an older content-data-set than the content-data-set or the representation thereof included in the determination of the fulfillment of the criterion”. Brown ¶¶ 0007, 0018 (data can be rolled back when an error is detected).
Both Haulk and Brown relate to responding to data errors. Haulk, abstract; Brown, abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rollback feature as taught by Brown in the method of Haulk with the motivation of recovering valid data. Brown ¶ 0006.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haulk in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0348450 A1 (hereinafter “Park”).
With respect to claim 6, Haulk does not explicitly disclose indexing data sets. Park discloses
“wherein the method comprises a tracking of every content-data-set or representation thereof sent or intended for sending to an electronic display device (2) and index it to determine the number of usage of identical or similar content-data-sets or representations thereof”. Park, abstract, ¶¶ 0010, 0014, 0018 (data sets are indexed).
Both Haulk and Park relate to electronic shelf labels. Haulk, abstract; Park, abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the indexing feature as taught by Park in the method of Haulk with the motivation of assisting to display correct data in electronic shelf labels. Park ¶ 0008.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0378859 A1 (hereinafter “Jang”) discloses triggering an action after a predetermined number of faults. Jang ¶ 0011.
Zhao, Jiawei et al., "A Review of Computer Vision Methods in Network Security", IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 3, third quarter 2021, pp. 1838-1878 (Year: 2021) (hereinafter “Zhao”) discloses computer vision methods in network security. Zhao, abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN D CIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-6:30.
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.
ETHAN D. CIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/ETHAN D CIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688