DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claims 1, 4, 14-15, and 19 were amended. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 remain pending and are examined in this office action. This action is a non-final office action due to the new grounds of rejection introduced under § 101 (which was not necessitated by the most recent amendment) below.
Priority
This U.S. patent application claims priority to Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 17/935,855 filed on September 27, 2022, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/261,726 filed on September 27, 2021.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Claims 4 is amended to correct the previous issue that was objected to. The previous objection of claim 4 is withdrawn.
35 USC § 103 Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-21 (pgs. 9-10, remarks filed 2/12/2026) have been considered but they are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection applied in the § 103 rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-21 below, responsive to applicant’s amendments. Please see the updated § 103 rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a final limitation “transmit the one or more notifications to one or more of the first user or the second user” – while the examiner can ascertain that the transmit step is referring to the notifications generated based on a change in entitlement status, the examiner recommends amending this step to either describe these notifications as “one or more additional notifications” in the generate and transmit steps of claim 1 (similar to claim 19), or amend the final limitation to recite “transmit the one or more notifications based on a change in entitlement status to one or more of the first user or the second user.”
Claim 14 recites “one or more entitlements of the first user, wherein the one or more entitlements provide access to a specific ride or experience at the selected time, and wherein the change in entitlement status occurs after a selected time for an entitlement” but appears “an entitlement” should recite “the one or more entitlements” or equivalent to maintain consistent terminology and improve clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Note: Upon further discussion with a supervisory patent examiner and feedback from the office of patent quality assurance, it was determined that the claims recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and upon further consideration. Therefore, the examiner has reconsidered pending claims 1-5 and 7-21 under § 101 and added the following rejection under § 101 below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 recite “A system…comprising an in-park network…one or more tracking devices…” (i.e. machine); claims 14-18 recite “A method…” (i.e. a process); and claims 19-21 recite “A system, comprising: an in-park network comprising…one or more tracking devices…and a plurality of sensors… one or more processors…a graphic user interface…” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1 recites limitations for tracking users within a geographic area and managing entitlements, including:
receive and process data…to determine a location of an individual user of the one or more users within the geographic area…
create and manage user accounts corresponding to the one or more users, wherein the user accounts are linked to one or more entitlements,
wherein the one or more entitlements provide access to a specific ride of experience at a selected time;
allow a first user account to share at least a subset of the one or more entitlements with a second user account;
determine, based on data received…a current location of a first user corresponding to the first user account and a second user corresponding to the second user account,
display…the current location of the first user corresponding to the first user account and the second user corresponding to the second user account and the one or more entitlements; and
send one or more notifications to the first user or the second user based on the current location of the first user corresponding to the first user account and the second user corresponding to the second user account and the one or more entitlements;
generate one or more notifications based on a change in entitlement status,
wherein the change in entitlement status occurs after the selected time for the one or more entitlements; and
[provide] the one or more notifications to one or more of the first user or the second user
Independent claim 14 recites the limitations:
A method for tracking users within a geographic area and managing entitlements…comprising:
associating a tracking device with a user, the tracking device including a unique identifier;
receiving and processing data…to determine a location of the first user…
[outputting] the location of the first user within the geographic area…
generating one or more notifications based on a change in entitlement status for one or more entitlements of the first user,
wherein the one or more entitlements provide access to a specific ride of experience at the selected time, and
wherein the change in entitlement status occurs after a selected time for an entitlement
Independent claim 19 recites limitations to:
receive data…to determine a first location of a first user and a second location of a second user within a geographic area…
create and manage a first user account associated with the first user and a second user account associated with the second user,
wherein the first user account is linked to a first of one or more entitlements and the second user account is linked to a second set of the one or more entitlements,
wherein the one or more entitlements provide access to a specific ride or experience at a selected time;
permit the first user account to share at least a subset of the first set of the one or more entitlements with the second user account to generate a shared subset of the one or more entitlements for the first user account and the second user account;
display (i.e. output)…the first location, the second location, or the shared subset of the one or more entitlements;
send one or more notifications to one or more of the first user or the second user based on one or more of the first location, the second location, or the shared subset of the one or more entitlements;
generate one or more additional notifications based on a change in entitlement status,
wherein the change in entitlement status occurs after the selected time for the one or more entitlements; and
[provide] the one or more additional notifications to one or more of the first user or the second user
The limitations of independent claims 1, 14, and 19 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. tracking the locations of users within a geographic area and managing entitlements or associated with user accounts to facilitate notifications based on the locations and the entitlements) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations of claims 1, 14 and 19 above amount to commercial interactions and managing personal behavior or interactions between people (i.e. tracking the locations of users within a geographic area and managing entitlements or associated with user accounts to facilitate notifications based on the locations and the entitlements), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The specification (see Summary at ¶ 0006-0008) further clarifies that these processes are intended for organizing human activity such as managing bookings (entitlements) for experiences (e.g. attractions) and are by nature commercial interactions in addition to processes for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people.
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1, 14, and 19 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the “receive and process data” step of claim 1, the “receiving and processing data” step of claim 14, and the “receive data…” step of claim 19 are analogous to mental observations, while the “determine,” “create and manage,” “allow,” “determine,” and “generate” steps of claim 1, the “associating” “determine,” and “generating” steps of claim 14, and the “determine,” “create and manage,” “permit,” and generate” steps of claim 19 are analogous to mental evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. Furthermore, the various steps throughout clams 1, 14 and 19 for displaying locations and/or entitlement information, and generating, sending, or otherwise outputting notifications simply describe administrative behaviors capable of being completed through writing, drawing, or verbal communications by humans and could be performed using simple tools such as pen and paper. Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1, 14, and 18 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As claims 1, 14, and 18 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“A system…comprising: an in-park network operable within the geographic area, the in-park network including: one or more tracking devices operable to be associated with one or more users within the geographic area, at least one tracking device of the one or more tracking devices including a unique identifier; a plurality of sensors distributed throughout the geographic area”
“at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors operable to determine a presence of the at least one tracking device within a specified range and communicate the presence of the at least one tracking device to the in-park network”
“one or more processor(s) operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, operable to” and “the one or more processors”
“receive and process data from the plurality of sensors via the in-park network”
“determine a location…in real-time”
“a graphic user interface (GUI), accessible via a computing device in communication with the in-park network, the GUI operable to” and “display, on the GUI…”
“data received from a local server”
using the one or more processors to “send” and “transmit” the one or more notifications
Claim 14 recites the following additional elements:
“via a user interface”
“a tracking device”
“determining a presence of the tracking device using a plurality of sensors distributed throughout the geographic area and communicating detection data to an in-park network”
“receiving and processing data from the plurality of sensors at a local server within the in-park network to determine a location of the first user in real-time”
“transmitting the location… on the user interface accessible via a computing device connected to the in-park network”
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements:
“A system, comprising: an in-park network comprising: one or more tracking devices operable to be associated with one or more users within a geographic area; and a plurality of sensors distributed throughout the geographic area”
“one or more processors operatively connected to the plurality of sensors”
“wherein the one or more processors are operable to receive data from the plurality of sensors via the in-park network to determine a first location …and a second location …in real-time”
“a graphic user interface operable to…” and “display, on the graphic user interface…”
using the one or more processors to “send” and “transmit” the one or more notifications
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1, 14, and 19 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. tracking the locations of users within a geographic area and managing entitlements or associated with user accounts to facilitate notifications based on the locations and the entitlements) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A system…comprising: an in-park network operable within the geographic area, the in-park network including: one or more tracking devices operable to be associated with one or more users within the geographic area, at least one tracking device of the one or more tracking devices including a unique identifier; a plurality of sensors distributed throughout the geographic area,” “at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors operable to determine a presence of the at least one tracking device within a specified range and communicate the presence of the at least one tracking device to the in-park network,” “a graphic user interface (GUI), accessible via a computing device in communication with the in-park network, the GUI operable to,” “a local server” of claim 1; “a user interface,” “a tracking device,” “using a plurality of sensors…,”/“the plurality of sensors,” “a local server,” and “a computing device connected to the in-park network” of claim 14; and “A system, comprising: an in-park network comprising: one or more tracking devices operable to be associated with one or more users within a geographic area; and a plurality of sensors distributed throughout the geographic area,” “one or more processors operatively connected to the plurality of sensors,” “wherein the one or more processors are operable to…,” “a graphic user interface operable to…” and “display, on the graphic user interface…,” of claim 19). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The limitations reciting the use of one or more sensors to detect a presence or to receive and process location data associated with a tracking device (i.e. collecting data used to perform the abstract idea), reciting the use of a graphical user interface accessed via a computing device to display information, the use of a local server to receive/send data, and the use of the one or more processors to receive and transmit information, all describe the use of computer components recited at a high level of generality and operating in their ordinary capacity to carry out the abstract idea within a computer environment. Each of these elements are described in a generic manner such that it is clear that the claims do not recite any technological improvements such as an improved sensor detection mechanism, an improvement to graphical user interfaces, or an improvement to the functioning of any other computer, tracking device, or computing device recited. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components. The performance of any of the above steps “in-real time” describes nothing more than added speed inherent with carrying out the abstract idea on generic computers.
Furthermore, the limitations describing the configuration of the in-park network (e.g. “the in-park network including…” or “an in-park network comprising…,” “one or more processors operatively connected to the plurality of sensors,” “connected to the in-park network,” etc.) merely generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Nothing about this configuration provides technical solution that solves a technological problem with any of the elements described herein or otherwise amounts to an improvement to technology.
Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 14, and 19 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. tracking the locations of users within a geographic area and managing entitlements or associated with user accounts to facilitate notifications based on the locations and the entitlements) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A system…comprising: an in-park network operable within the geographic area, the in-park network including: one or more tracking devices operable to be associated with one or more users within the geographic area, at least one tracking device of the one or more tracking devices including a unique identifier; a plurality of sensors distributed throughout the geographic area,” “at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors operable to determine a presence of the at least one tracking device within a specified range and communicate the presence of the at least one tracking device to the in-park network,” “a graphic user interface (GUI), accessible via a computing device in communication with the in-park network, the GUI operable to,” “a local server” of claim 1; “a user interface,” “a tracking device,” “using a plurality of sensors…,”/“the plurality of sensors,” “a local server,” and “a computing device connected to the in-park network” of claim 14; and “A system, comprising: an in-park network comprising: one or more tracking devices operable to be associated with one or more users within a geographic area; and a plurality of sensors distributed throughout the geographic area,” “one or more processors operatively connected to the plurality of sensors,” “wherein the one or more processors are operable to…,” “a graphic user interface operable to…” and “display, on the graphic user interface…,” of claim 19). The performance of any of the above steps “in-real time” describes nothing more than added speed inherent with carrying out the abstract idea on generic computers.
As above, the limitations reciting the use of one or more sensors to detect a presence or to receive and process location data associated with a tracking device (i.e. collecting data used to carry out the abstract idea), reciting the use of a graphical user interface accessed via a computing device to display information, the use of a local server to receive/send data, and the use of the one or more processors to receive and transmit information, all describe the use of computer components recited at a high level of generality and operating in their ordinary capacity to carry out the abstract idea within a computer environment. Each of these elements are described in a generic manner such that it is clear that the claims do not recite any technological improvements such as an improved sensor detection mechanism, an improvement to graphical user interfaces, or an improvement to the functioning of any other computer, tracking device, or computing device recited. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer after the fact to an abstract idea does not add significantly more, but instead indicates mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components.
Furthermore, the limitations describing the combined configuration of the in-park network (e.g. “the in-park network including…” or “an in-park network comprising…,” “one or more processors operatively connected to the plurality of sensors,” “connected to the in-park network,” etc.) merely generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Nothing about this configuration provides technical solution that solves a technological problem with any of the elements described herein or otherwise amounts to an improvement to technology. Considering the additional elements above as an ordered combination does not add anything more than the use of generic computers to carry out the abstract idea, or otherwise add anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-13, 15-18, and 20-21:
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 15-18, and 20-21 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 14, and 19 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-3 recite the following limitations, which generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by further describing the technical environment in which the abstract idea is being carried out, but do not add anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea: “wherein one or more tracking devices include one or more wearable devices, the one or more wearable devices including one or more: wristbands, lanyards, and/or badges, wherein the one or more wearable devices incorporate a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag” (claim 2); and “the plurality of sensors includes short-range sensors and long-range sensors, the short-range sensors having a detection range of less than 1 foot and the long-range sensors having a detection range of up to 90 feet” (claim 3).
Claim 4 (and similar claim 21) recites “wherein the graphic user interface comprises: a first screen operable to select an entitlement of the one or more entitlements; a second screen operable to designate the second user to receive the entitlement; and a third screen to confirm the allocation of the entitlement to the second user” - however, these limitations further describe the abstract idea above (“select an entitlement…designate the second user…and…confirm the allocation of the entitlement…”) being applied using a generic graphical user interface being used in its ordinary capacity to display information on a screen and receive user inputs/commands.
Claims 5 and 16 recite “wherein the graphic user interface comprises: a first screen displaying the geographic area and the locations of users; a filtering option on the first screen to display specific groups of users or individual users based on a selection by the first user” (claim 5) and “generating a map interface on the user interface displaying the geographic area and the locations of users; filtering the displayed locations to show specific groups of users or individual users based on criteria selected by the first user” (claim 16) - however, these limitations further describe the abstract idea above (“displaying the geographic area and the locations of users” and “display specific groups of users or individual users based on a selection by the first user” of claim 5; and “filtering the displayed locations to show specific groups of users or individual users based on criteria selected by the first user” of claim 16) being applied using generic computer implementation (using generic graphic user interface display functions and a map interface to display information based on user selection), which merely uses generic computing components in their ordinary capacity as per above.
Claim 7 recites limitations further describing the abstract idea (i.e. “provide user-specific information such as point balance, gamification status, and reservation details”) applied using generic computers (i.e. one or more kiosks located within the geographic area and configured to interact with the tracking devices).
Claim 8 further recites generic user interface functions (“wherein the graphic user interface is accessible via the kiosks and configured to display a status of: one or more of the first user and the second user, and the one or more entitlements”) of a graphic user interface operating in its ordinary capacity, to display information.
Claim 9 recites “a point-of-sale station including a ticket printer configured to print tickets with barcodes or QR codes corresponding to the one or more entitlements” – however, these limitations merely use a printer in its ordinary capacity to print a document (i.e. tickets) that is unrelated to the abstract idea, rather than reciting anything that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claim 10 further describes “wherein the point-of-sale stations include a payment terminal configured to accept various forms of payment, including credit cards, debit cards, and contactless payment methods…” which is described at a high level of generality and does not add anything more than use of a generic payment terminal (e.g. card reader) being used in its ordinary capacity to conduct payments. Applicant has not invented an improved card reader (the specification does not even describe a payment terminal in any detail at all) or improved any technology relating to a card reader.
Claims 11-12 recites limitations further describing the abstract idea (“update user accounts in real-time, the updating corresponding to the one or more entitlements” of claim 11; “determining a proximity of a kiosk”) using generic computer components operating in their ordinary capacity to receive/transmit data (“wherein the point-of-sale stations are configured to communicate with the in-park network…” of claim 11; and “transmitting, based on the proximity, information related to the first account to the kiosk” of claim 12).
Claim 13 further recites “wherein the kiosk is configured to display, when one or more of the first user or the second user positions the one or more tracking devices within proximity of the kiosk, user-specific information including: location, point balances, gamification status, and/or reservation details” – however, the use of the kiosk in the claim is consistent with generic computer activities (e.g. receiving, transmitting, and displaying information) used to apply the abstract idea step (for displaying user-specific information).
Claim 15 recites further limitations describing the abstract idea (i.e. creating and managing user accounts, each user account being linked to the one or more entitlements; enabling a the first user to allocate entitlements to a second user, and providing customized notifications to the second user based on the location and the entitlements of the first user) using generic computer implementation and/or the use of computers in their ordinary capacity (i.e. “providing an account management module,” “via a user interface… via an entitlement sharing module on the user interface,” and “ transmitting customized notifications…”).
Claim 17 recites limitations further describing the abstract idea (“determining a condition of the first user using data from the plurality of sensors and the plurality of user accounts, wherein the plurality of user accounts are associated with a plurality of users”) and the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to transmit data (“transmitting, based on the condition, one or more notifications to one or more users of the plurality of users based on determining the condition”).
Claims 18 and 20 recites limitation which further describe the abstract idea above (“allow the first user account associated with the first user to specify that no user account be allowed to use more than a maximum number of the one or more entitlements shared between the first user account and a second user account associated with the second user” of claim 18 and “allow the first user account to specify that the second user account is not allowed to use more than a maximum number of the shared subset of the one or more entitlements” of claim 20) using generic implementation of user interfaces being used in their ordinary capacity (“the user interface is operable to…” of claim 18, and “the graphic user interface is operable to” of claim 20).
None of the limitations in the dependent claims above, or combination of the limitations above, add anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-5 and 7-21 are ineligible under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-2, 4-5, 8, 14-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170200319 A1 to Popkey et al. (Popkey) in view of US 20140225730 A1 to DePascale, and further in view of US 20130151296 A1 to Waytena et al. (Waytena).
Claim 1: Popkey teaches:
A system for tracking users within a geographic area and managing entitlements (Popkey: ¶ 0046 showing queue and /or admission management system for managing purchasing and tracking of wristbands at a venue, which allow a customer/user to skip lines; also see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0047), the system comprising:
an in-park network operable within the geographic area (Popkey: ¶ 0046-0050, Fig. 1 showing venue/amusement park system, including a plurality of devices associated with patrons, user ID units, attraction communication devices in communication over network 20; see Fig. 6 showing map of geographic area of the venue, which corresponds to “Amusement Park ABC”), the in-park network including: one or more tracking devices operable to be associated with one or more users within the geographic area (Popkey: ¶ 0046, ¶ 0050, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0065 showing RFID wristbands associated with user IDs and configured for use within the venue/park at various readers/scanners located at each attraction throughout the venue/park), at least one tracking device of the one or more tracking devices including a unique identifier (Popkey: ¶ 0050, ¶ 0058-0060 showing each of the wristbands is associated with a unique user ID, i.e. unique identifier);
a plurality of sensors distributed throughout the geographic area (Popkey: at least ¶ 0046, ¶ 0051 showing a plurality of RFID readers/scanners located throughout the venue, e.g. amusement park),
at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors operable to determine a presence of the at least one tracking device within a specified range (Popkey: ¶ 0051 “Long range readers located throughout the venue will be able to capture RFID location up to no less than twenty feet from a reader as the RFID holder passes that particular location. The more locations the venue has readers, the more accurate the tracking of each RFID holder”) and communicate the presence of the at least one tracking device to the in-park network (Popkey: ¶ 0046 “The wristbands also enable both tracking position and monitoring uses throughout the venue” and ¶ 0062 showing upon scanning the RFID wristband by a reader, a request is sent to the system servers for the Zoomline queue service; also see ¶ 0051, ¶ 0059-0060, ¶ 0075);
one or more processor(s) operatively connected to the plurality of sensors (Popkey: ¶ 0020, ¶ 0048-0049 showing one or more servers 12, i.e. a computer connected to the attraction communication devices and ID units) operable to receive and process data from the plurality of sensors via the in-park network to determine a location of an individual user of the one or more users within the geographic area in real-time (Popkey: ¶ 0051 showing “The patron PCD will have a login and a password, and will have the ability to record and associate as many as thirty-five (or more) RFID bracelets which the patron will be able to identify the last known location and the time of each use of each programmed RFID bracelet that they wish to track. Long range readers located throughout the venue will be able to capture RFID location up to no less than twenty feet from a reader as the RFID holder passes that particular location. The more locations the venue has readers, the more accurate the tracking of each RFID holder”; ¶ 0062, ¶ 0049);
and a graphic user interface (GUI), accessible via a computing device in communication with the in-park network (Popkey: ¶ 0054-0061 and Figs. 4-12 showing various screenshots showing graphical user interface accessible using a PCD “personal communication device” used by a patron in communication with the in-park network and interact within the system; see ¶ 0047, Fig. 1 showing patron PCDs communicating via the network 20),
the GUI operable to create and manage user accounts corresponding to the one or more users (Popkey: Fig. 9 and ¶ 0057-0060 showing patron administration screen with options used for activating new wristbands and managing user accounts having active wristbands),
wherein the user accounts are linked to one or more entitlements (Popkey: ¶ 0057-0060 and Fig. 9 showing a patron using the Zoomline queue service option is presented with screen showing wristbands that are associated with user accounts for the Zoomline queue service used to skip the attraction waiting line; as per ¶ 0060 and Fig. 11, selection of a particular user ID displays an ID detail screen for further viewing);
allow a first user account to share at least a subset of the one or more entitlements with a second user account (Popkey: Fig. 9 and ¶ 0057-0060 as above, showing the patron may activate/add user IDs/accounts with Zoomline wristband using the user interface as per element 142; also see Fig. 10/¶ 0058 detailing activation process and patron ID activation screen to add another user ID entitled to the Zoomline benefit, and ¶ 0059 showing “Parents or groups can link multiple wristbands to their account making it simple to keep track of children or group members. If an account has multiple linked wristbands, then the patron can view a map of the purchases with associated times that each wristband was used, together with overall financial statistics”);
With respect to the limitation:
determine, based on data received from a local server, a current location of a first user corresponding to the first user account and a second user corresponding to the second user account, and
display, on the GUI, the current location of the first user corresponding to the first user account and the second user corresponding to the second user account and the one or more entitlements; and
Popkey teaches a tracking module for determining, based on data received from the one or more processors/servers, tracked locations of a plurality of individual users corresponding to their respective user accounts (Popkey: ¶ 0051 “The patron PCD will have a login and a password, and will have the ability to record and associate as many as thirty-five (or more) RFID bracelets which the patron will be able to identify the last known location and the time of each use of each programmed RFID bracelet that they wish to track. Long range readers located throughout the venue will be able to capture RFID location up to no less than twenty feet from a reader as the RFID holder passes that particular location. The more locations the venue has readers, the more accurate the tracking of each RFID holder”), and displaying, on a graphical user interface, the location and indication of usage of an entitlement, i.e. usage of the wristband entitlement to skip the line (Popkey: ¶ 0059 “Parents or groups can link multiple wristbands to their account making it simple to keep track of children or group members. If an account has multiple linked wristbands, then the patron can view a map of the purchases with associated times that each wristband was used”; also see Fig. 11, ¶ 0060). Popkey does not explicitly teach that the tracking of the locations involves determining and displaying a current location of at least first and second users. However, DePascale teaches determining and displaying current location of at least a first user and a second user associated with one or more trackers (DePascale: Fig. 3, ¶ 0038-0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination and display of a plurality of user locations on a graphical user interface of DePascale in the amusement park tracking system of Popkey with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “When traveling in groups with children, for instance on a field trip or while on vacation, it can be difficult to keep track of the entire group at all times” (DePascale: ¶ 0004) and “for older children and young teenagers, many times group trips involve being spread out over a greater area, and the children are not confined to remaining in a singular group under direct supervision from a parent or teacher. This is typical of most middle school or high school trips to museums, for family trips to amusement parks, and similar group trips involving older children. Tracking children of this age who are not necessarily required to stay in a small group is a particular challenge, and of particular concern to the present invention. Without a means to monitor each child's whereabouts, a member of the group can easily become lost or exposed to abduction, whereby the parent or supervisor of the overall group has little control over the situation and is unable to immediately locate each individual of the group when required” (DePascale: ¶ 0005).
Popkey, as modified above, further teaches:
send one or more notifications to the first user or the second user based on the current location of the first user corresponding to the first user account and the second user corresponding to the second user account and one or more entitlements (Popkey: Fig. 10 showing notification module “you will be notified every time the wristband is used,” which as per Fig. 11 and ¶ 0060 the usage/transaction information associated with usage of the wristband for each user ID includes the attraction, i.e. location, that the wristband was used; and ¶ 0058 “the patron can, among other things, create a user name 156, determine whether he wants to be notified 158 with every user ID use and can choose to activate 160 each particular ID”; wherein as per ¶ 0051 “The patron PCD will have a login and a password, and will have the ability to record and associate as many as thirty-five (or more) RFID bracelets which the patron will be able to identify the last known location and the time of each use of each programmed RFID bracelet that they wish to track. Long range readers located throughout the venue will be able to capture RFID location up to no less than twenty feet from a reader as the RFID holder passes that particular location”)
With respect to the following limitations, Popkey teaches generating and sending one or more notifications to the first user or second user corresponding to usage of an entitlement of one or more entitlements (Popkey: Fig. 10/¶ 0058 and Fig. 11 /¶ 0060), but does not explicitly teach the following. However, Waytena teaches:
wherein the one or more entitlements provide access to a specific ride or experience at a selected time (Waytena: ¶ 0114 “the patron requests 302 a reservation for a selected attraction by entering the request using user interface 201 of PCD 102. The request may specify a particular time of day that the patron is interested in, or it may simply request the next available time”, and ¶ 0015-0017, ¶ 0114-0124, ¶ 0132-0133 showing full reservation process for a specific attraction, including a selected time for the group, where the group includes a number of guests/group members in addition to the patron; also see ¶ 0048-0055, ¶ 0128 the patron manages a group for which the reservation (entitlement) is assigned, including a plurality of users);
and wherein the one or more processors are operable to: generate one or more notifications based on a change in entitlement status; and transmit the one or more notifications to one or more of the first user or the second user (Waytena: ¶ 0016-0017, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0125, ¶ 0161-0163 showing an alert is generated and transmitting to the patron PCD (personal communication device) alerting the user of an approaching reservation, or when a change or modification associated with the status of an existing reservation occurs)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the entitlement being a reservation associated with a ride/attraction and notifying each users of status updates associated with the ride and the associated reservation of Waytena in the amusement park tracking system of Popkey/DePascale with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “One of the most difficult problems to solve in the design and operation of amusement parks is managing the queuing of patrons for rides and other attractions…Lines for very popular attractions can last many hours” (Waytena: ¶ 0004), and provide the benefit that “If an attraction malfunctions, or if some other factor necessitates a delay or cancellation of the patron's place in line, the patron typically feels extremely disappointed and frustrated at having wasted a significant amount of time in line. Therefore, it is advantageous to be able to inform patrons remotely when there is a problem with an attraction” (Waytena: ¶ 0009) and “This enables patrons to efficiently use their time while at the facility, increasing the number of attractions or services visited by the patrons, thereby increasing their enjoyment of the facility” (Waytena: ¶ 0208).
Claim 2: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 1. Popkey, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the one or more tracking devices include one or more wearable devices, the one or more wearable devices including one or more: wristbands (Popkey: ¶ 0046, ¶ 0050-0052, ¶ 0058-0063 showing RFID wristbands), lanyards, and/or badges,
wherein the one or more wearable devices incorporate a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag (Popkey: ¶ 0046, ¶ 0050-0052, ¶ 0058-0063 showing RFID wristbands)
Claim 4: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 1. Popkey, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the graphic user interface comprises: a first screen operable to select an entitlement of the one or more entitlements (Popkey: Fig. 4 and ¶ 0054, ¶ 0058 showing home screen with a button for selecting the “Zoomline” queue service option 90);
a second screen operable to designate the second user to receive the entitlement (Popkey: ¶ 0058 showing “if the patron selects the ZOOMLINE® queue service option 90, then he will be presented with a patron administration screen 140” as per Fig. 9, which shows currently activated second users with wristbands);
and a third screen to confirm the allocation of the entitlement to the second user (Popkey: Fig. 10 and ¶ 0058 showing “Wristband activation 142 brings the patron to the patron ID activation screen 154, see FIG. 10. From this activation screen 154, the patron can, among other things, create a user name 156, determine whether he wants to be notified 158 with every user ID use and can choose to activate 160 each particular ID”)
Claim 5: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Popkey does not explicitly teach, however, DePascale teaches:
wherein the graphic user interface further comprises: a first screen displaying the geographic area and the locations of users (DePascale: ¶ 0038-0040 and Fig. 3 showing screen with geographic area and locations of users in the group); and
a filtering option on the first screen to display specific groups of users or individual users based on a selection by the first user (DePascale: ¶ 0040 and Fig. 3 element 253 showing “If a wearer strays from the group, the administrator can query the specific wearer 251 and determine who the individual wearer 251 is from the identification of the locator device being worn. Each of the locator devices is individually logged and has a unique identifier, wherein data 253 from each can be interrogated via the application layer to determine the identity of the wearer. The application layer allows the administrator to log each wearer and mark the specific locator that corresponds to the wearer, which is thereafter stored on the remote server for subsequent retrieval”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the display for tracking and selecting a particular user of DePascale in the amusement park tracking system of Popkey/DePascale/Waytena with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the same motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 8: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 1. Popkey, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the graphic user interface is accessible via one or more kiosks and operable to display a status of: one or more of the first user or the second user, and the one or more entitlements (Popkey: ¶ 0050, ¶ 0052 showing user can alternatively access the patron administration system interface (described in ¶ 0054-0060) via a venue kiosk or venue PCD; see Figs. 9, 11 displaying activated wristbands and activity using wristbands/user ID)
Claim 14: Popkey teaches:
A method for tracking users within a geographic area and managing entitlements (Popkey: ¶ 0046 showing queue and /or admission management system for managing purchasing and tracking of wristbands at a venue, which allow a customer/user to skip lines; also see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0047; see ¶ 0052 patron administration process and ¶ 0003 “methods, and apparatuses for managing the transactions enabling a customer to bypass the ordinary waiting line at an amusement park attraction, a ski resort lift, concert or sporting events, and the like”) via a user interface (Popkey: ¶ 0052-0054, Fig. 4 showing user interface), comprising:
associating a tracking device with a first user (Popkey: Figs. 9-10 and ¶ 0057-0060 showing patron administration screen with options used for activating new wristbands and managing user accounts having active wristbands, and showing the patron may activate/add user IDs/accounts with Zoomline wristband using the user interface; Popkey: ¶ 0046, ¶ 0050, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0065 showing RFID wristbands associated with user IDs and configured for use within the venue/park at various readers/scanners located at each attraction throughout the venue/park), the tracking device including a unique identifier (Popkey: ¶ 0050, ¶ 0058-0060 showing each of the wristbands is associated with a unique user ID, i.e. unique identifier);
determining a presence of the tracking device using a plurality of sensors distributed throughout the geographic area (Popkey: ¶ 0051 “Long range readers located throughout the venue will be able to capture RFID location up to no less than twenty feet from a reader as the RFID holder passes that particular location. The more locations the venue has readers, the more accurate the tracking of each RFID holder”)
and communicating detection data to an in-park network corresponding to the geographic area (Popkey: ¶ 0046 “The wristbands also enable both tracking position and monitoring uses throughout the venue” and ¶ 0062 showing upon scanning the RFID wristband by a reader, a request is sent to the system servers for the Zoomline queue service; also see ¶ 0051, ¶ 0059-0060, ¶ 0075);
receiving and processing data from the plurality of sensors at a local server within the in-park network (Popkey: ¶ 0020, ¶ 0048-0049, ¶ showing one or more servers 12, i.e. a computer connected to the attraction communication devices and ID units) to determine a location of the first user in real-time (Popkey: ¶ 0051 showing “The patron PCD will have a login and a password, and will have the ability to record and associate as many as thirty-five (or more) RFID bracelets which the patron will be able to identify the last known location and the time of each use of each programmed RFID bracelet that they wish to track. Long range readers located throughout the venue will be able to capture RFID location up to no less than twenty feet from a reader as the RFID holder passes that particular location. The more locations the venue has readers, the more accurate the tracking of each RFID holder”; ¶ 0062, ¶ 0049);
With respect to the limitation:
transmitting the location of the first user within the geographic area on the user interface accessible via a computing device connected to the in-park network;
Popkey teaches a tracking module for determining, based on data received from the one or more processors/servers, tracked locations of a plurality of individual users corresponding to their respective user accounts (Popkey: ¶ 0051 “The patron PCD will have a login and a password, and will have the ability to record and associate as many as thirty-five (or more) RFID bracelets which the patron will be able to identify the last known location and the time of each use of each programmed RFID bracelet that they wish to track. Long range readers located throughout the venue will be able to capture RFID location up to no less than twenty feet from a reader as the RFID holder passes that particular location. The more locations the venue has readers, the more accurate the tracking of each RFID holder”), and displaying, on a graphical user interface, the location and indication of usage of an entitlement, i.e. usage of the wristband entitlement to skip the line (Popkey: ¶ 0059 “Parents or groups can link multiple wristbands to their account making it simple to keep track of children or group members. If an account has multiple linked wristbands, then the patron can view a map of the purchases with associated times that each wristband was used”; also see Fig. 11, ¶ 0060), which highly suggests but does not explicitly teach transmitting the location of users on the user interface.
However, to any extent that Popkey does not explicitly teach transmitting the location of users within the geographic area on a user interface accessible via a computing device, DePascale teaches transmitting and displaying current location of a plurality of users associated with one or more trackers (DePascale: Fig. 3, ¶ 0038-0040; see ¶ 0039 specifically “Each of the locator devices continually updates the remote server of its location, whereby the location is then transmitted to the input terminal and displayed for the user/administrator”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the transmitting and display of a plurality of user locations on a graphical user interface of DePascale in the amusement park tracking system of Popkey with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “When traveling in groups with children, for instance on a field trip or while on vacation, it can be difficult to keep track of the entire group at all times” (DePascale: ¶ 0004) and “for older children and young teenagers, many times group trips involve being spread out over a greater area, and the children are not confined to remaining in a singular group under direct supervision from a parent or teacher. This is typical of most middle school or high school trips to museums, for family trips to amusement parks, and similar group trips involving older children. Tracking children of this age who are not necessarily required to stay in a small group is a particular challenge, and of particular concern to the present invention. Without a means to monitor each child's whereabouts, a member of the group can easily become lost or exposed to abduction, whereby the parent or supervisor of the overall group has little control over the situation and is unable to immediately locate each individual of the group when required” (DePascale: ¶ 0005).
With respect to the following limitations, Popkey teaches and generating one or more notifications based on a change in entitlement status for the first user (Popkey: Fig. 11 and ¶ 0060 showing recent transactions data representing usage of the entitlement, i.e. “a change in entitlement status” generated and displayed on user interface), but does not explicitly teach the following limitation as a whole. However, Waytena teaches:
and generating one or more notifications based on a change in entitlement status for one or more entitlements of the first user (Waytena: ¶ 0016-0017, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0125, ¶ 0161-0163 showing alerting patron PCD (patron communication device) upon a change in status with respect to a reservation for one or more users to an attraction at a specific time),
wherein the one or more entitlements provide access to a specific ride or experience at the selected time (Waytena: ¶ 0114 “the patron requests 302 a reservation for a selected attraction by entering the request using user interface 201 of PCD 102. The request may specify a particular time of day that the patron is interested in, or it may simply request the next available time”, and ¶ 0015-0017, ¶ 0114-0124, ¶ 0132-0133 showing full reservation process for a specific attraction, including a selected time for the group, where the group includes a number of guests/group members in addition to the patron; also see ¶ 0048-0055, ¶ 0128 the patron manages a group for which the reservation (entitlement) is assigned, including a plurality of users),
and wherein the change in entitlement status occurs after a selected time for an entitlement (Waytena: ¶ 0163 “additional alerts may be provided…if the reservation has not been claimed at the appropriate time”; also see ¶ 0164 “if a reserved time passes and the patron does not show up at the attraction within a predetermined or flexible grace period, PCD 102 detects the failure to receive the arrival message and enters state 515. In either case, the reservation is removed from local storage 206 and patron performance information, stored in 202, is updated to reflect the patron's arrival or failure to arrive in time for the reservation”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the entitlement being a reservation associated with a ride/attraction and notifying each users of status updates associated with the ride and the associated reservation of Waytena in the amusement park tracking system of Popkey/DePascale with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “One of the most difficult problems to solve in the design and operation of amusement parks is managing the queuing of patrons for rides and other attractions…Lines for very popular attractions can last many hours” (Waytena: ¶ 0004), and provide the benefit that “If an attraction malfunctions, or if some other factor necessitates a delay or cancellation of the patron's place in line, the patron typically feels extremely disappointed and frustrated at having wasted a significant amount of time in line. Therefore, it is advantageous to be able to inform patrons remotely when there is a problem with an attraction” (Waytena: ¶ 0009) and “This enables patrons to efficiently use their time while at the facility, increasing the number of attractions or services visited by the patrons, thereby increasing their enjoyment of the facility” (Waytena: ¶ 0208).
Claim 15: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 14. Popkey, as modified above, further teaches:
creating and managing user accounts (Popkey: Fig. 9 and ¶ 0057-0060 showing patron administration screen with options used for activating new wristbands and managing user accounts having active wristbands),
wherein the user accounts are linked to the one or more entitlements (Popkey: ¶ 0057-0060 and Fig. 9 showing a patron using the Zoomline queue service option is presented with screen showing wristbands that are associated with user accounts for the Zoomline queue service; as per ¶ 0060 and Fig. 11, selection of a particular user ID displays an ID detail screen for further viewing);
enabling, via the user interface, the first user to allocate a subset of the one or more entitlements to a second user (Popkey: Fig. 9 and ¶ 0057-0060 as above, showing the patron may activate/add user IDs/accounts with Zoomline wristband using the user interface as per element 142; also see Fig. 10/¶ 0058 detailing activation process and patron ID activation screen to add another user ID entitled to the Zoomline benefit, and ¶ 0059 showing “Parents or groups can link multiple wristbands to their account making it simple to keep track of children or group members. If an account has multiple linked wristbands, then the patron can view a map of the purchases with associated times that each wristband was used, together with overall financial statistics”);
transmitting customized notifications to the second user based on the location and the one or more entitlements of the first user (Popkey: ¶ 0060 showing “For example, John's and Kyle's wristbands may be viewed by selecting their respective prompts 162, 164. FIG. 11 illustrates a particular ID detail screen 166; in this example John's 162 wristband detail is selected. The detail may include, among other things, recent transactions 168 and the ability to deactivate 170 the ID and perhaps send a message to the ID holder. If the patron wants/needs to send a message, such a message will be displayed at the next reader the user of the ID activates”; also see ¶ 0068 showing option to send an alert to a user and ¶ 0070 “the administrator may have selected the send alert 232 option from the login screen 228 of FIG. 15, and accordingly will be directed to the send message screen 266 of FIG. 18. From here, the administrator can enter a message 268 and update 270. The communication capability of the system allows for messages to be sent via PCD or otherwise and received on the scanner/reader when that particular ID is scanned)
Claim 16: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 14. With respect to the following limitations, Popkey does not explicitly teach, however, DePascale teaches:
further comprising: generating a map interface on the user interface displaying the geographic area and locations of a plurality of users (DePascale: ¶ 0038-0040 and Fig. 3 showing screen with geographic area and locations of users in the group); and
filtering the locations of the plurality of users to show specific groups of users or individual users based on criteria selected by the first user (DePascale: ¶ 0040 and Fig. 3 element 253 showing “If a wearer strays from the group, the administrator can query the specific wearer 251 and determine who the individual wearer 251 is from the identification of the locator device being worn. Each of the locator devices is individually logged and has a unique identifier, wherein data 253 from each can be interrogated via the application layer to determine the identity of the wearer. The application layer allows the administrator to log each wearer and mark the specific locator that corresponds to the wearer, which is thereafter stored on the remote server for subsequent retrieval”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the display for tracking and selecting a particular user of DePascale in the amusement park tracking system of Popkey/DePascale/Waytena with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the same motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 17: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 14. Popkey, as modified above, further teaches:
further comprising the operations of: determining a condition of the first user using data from the plurality of sensors and the plurality of user accounts, wherein the plurality of user accounts are associated with a plurality of users (Popkey: ¶ 0062 showing the ID holders, i.e. a plurality of users associated with user IDs, can use the RFID wristband by scanning them at the reader, which determines whether the respective account ID is active and has sufficient funds, and then approves and charges payment);
transmitting, based on the condition, one or more notifications to one or more users of the plurality of users based on determining the condition (Popkey: ¶ 0058, Fig. 10 showing the patron can be notified every time any one of the wristbands associated with the one or more users is used; also see ¶ 0051, and ¶ 0059 showing “If an account has multiple linked wristbands, then the patron can view a map of the purchases with associated times that each wristband was used”)
Claim 19: Popkey teaches:
A system (Popkey: ¶ 0046 showing queue and /or admission management system for managing purchasing and tracking of wristbands at a venue, which allow a customer/user to skip lines; also see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0047 showing server 12), comprising:
an in-park network (Popkey: ¶ 0046-0050, Fig. 1 showing venue/amusement park system, including a plurality of devices associated with patrons, user ID units, attraction communication devices in communication over network 20; see Fig. 6 showing map of geographic area of the venue, which corresponds to “Amusement Park ABC”) comprising:
one or more tracking devices operable to be associated with one or more users within a geographic area (Popkey: ¶ 0046, ¶ 0050, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0065 showing RFID wristbands associated with user IDs and configured for use within the venue/park at various readers/scanners located at each attraction throughout the venue/park); and
a plurality of sensors distributed throughout the geographic area (Popkey: at least ¶ 0046, ¶ 0051 showing a plurality of RFID readers/scanners located throughout the venue, e.g. amusement park);
one or more processors operatively connected to the plurality of sensors (Popkey: ¶ 0020, ¶ 0048-0049 showing one or more servers 12, i.e. a computer connected to the attraction communication devices and ID units), wherein the one or more processors are operable to receive data from the plurality of sensors via the in-park network to determine a first location of a first user and a second location of a second user within a geographic area in real-time (Popkey: ¶ 0051 showing “The patron PCD will have a login and a password, and will have the ability to record and associate as many as thirty-five (or more) RFID bracelets which the patron will be able to identify the last known location and the time of each use of each programmed RFID bracelet that they wish to track. Long range readers located throughout the venue will be able to capture RFID location up to no less than twenty feet from a reader as the RFID holder passes that particular location. The more locations the venue has readers, the more accurate the tracking of each RFID holder”; ¶ 0062, ¶ 0049); and
a graphic user interface (Popkey: ¶ 0054-0061 and Figs. 4-12 showing various screenshots showing graphical user interface accessible using a PCD “personal communication device” used by a patron in communication with the in-park network and interact within the system; see ¶ 0047, Fig. 1 showing patron PCDs communicating via the network 20) operable to: create and manage a first user account associated with the first user and a second user account associated with the second user (Popkey: Fig. 9 and ¶ 0057-0060 showing patron administration screen with options used for activating new wristbands and managing a plurality of user accounts having active wristbands),
wherein the first user account is linked to a first set of one or more entitlements and the second user account is linked to a second set of the one or more entitlements (Popkey: ¶ 0057-0060 and Fig. 9 showing a patron using the Zoomline queue service option is presented with screen showing wristbands that are associated with user accounts for the Zoomline queue service; as per ¶ 0060 and Fig. 11, selection of a particular user ID displays an ID detail screen for further viewing and showing plurality of user accounts);
permit the first user account to share at least a subset of the first set of the one or more entitlements with the second user account to generate a shared subset of the one or more entitlements for the first user account and the second user account (Popkey: Fig. 9 and ¶ 0057-0060 as above, showing the patron may activate/add user IDs/accounts with Zoomline wristband using the user interface as per element 142; also see Fig. 10/¶ 0058 detailing activation process and patron ID activation screen to add another user ID entitled to the Zoomline benefit, and ¶ 0059 showing “Parents or groups can link multiple wristbands to their account making it simple to keep track of children or group members. If an account has multiple linked wristbands, then the patron can view a map of the purchases with associated times that each wristband was used, together with overall financial statistics”); and
With respect to the limitation:
display, on the graphic user interface, the first location, the second location, and the shared subset of the one or more entitlements; and
Popkey teaches a tracking module for determining, based on data received from the one or more processors/servers, tracked locations of a plurality of individual users corresponding to their respective user accounts (Popkey: ¶ 0051 “The patron PCD will have a login and a password, and will have the ability to record and associate as many as thirty-five (or more) RFID bracelets which the patron will be able to identify the last known location and the time of each use of each programmed RFID bracelet that they wish to track. Long range readers located throughout the venue will be able to capture RFID location up to no less than twenty feet from a reader as the RFID holder passes that particular location. The more locations the venue has readers, the more accurate the tracking of each RFID holder”), and displaying, on a graphical user interface, the location and indication of usage of an entitlement, i.e. usage of the wristband entitlement to skip the line (Popkey: ¶ 0059 “Parents or groups can link multiple wristbands to their account making it simple to keep track of children or group members. If an account has multiple linked wristbands, then the patron can view a map of the purchases with associated times that each wristband was used”; also see Fig. 11, ¶ 0060). Popkey does not explicitly teach that the tracking of the locations involves determining and displaying a current location of at least first and second users. However, DePascale teaches determining and displaying current location of at least a first user and a second user associated with one or more trackers (DePascale: Fig. 3, ¶ 0038-0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination and display of a plurality of user locations on a graphical user interface of DePascale in the amusement park tracking system of Popkey with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “When traveling in groups with children, for instance on a field trip or while on vacation, it can be difficult to keep track of the entire group at all times” (DePascale: ¶ 0004) and “for older children and young teenagers, many times group trips involve being spread out over a greater area, and the children are not confined to remaining in a singular group under direct supervision from a parent or teacher. This is typical of most middle school or high school trips to museums, for family trips to amusement parks, and similar group trips involving older children. Tracking children of this age who are not necessarily required to stay in a small group is a particular challenge, and of particular concern to the present invention. Without a means to monitor each child's whereabouts, a member of the group can easily become lost or exposed to abduction, whereby the parent or supervisor of the overall group has little control over the situation and is unable to immediately locate each individual of the group when required” (DePascale: ¶ 0005).
Popkey, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are operable to: send one or more notifications to one or more of the first user or the second user based on one or more of the first location, the second location, or the shared subset of the one or more entitlements (Popkey: Fig. 10 showing notification module “you will be notified every time the wristband is used,” which as per Fig. 11 and ¶ 0060 the usage/transaction information associated with usage of the wristband for each user ID includes the attraction, i.e. location, that the wristband was used; and ¶ 0058 “the patron can, among other things, create a user name 156, determine whether he wants to be notified 158 with every user ID use and can choose to activate 160 each particular ID”; wherein as per ¶ 0051 “The patron PCD will have a login and a password, and will have the ability to record and associate as many as thirty-five (or more) RFID bracelets which the patron will be able to identify the last known location and the time of each use of each programmed RFID bracelet that they wish to track. Long range readers located throughout the venue will be able to capture RFID location up to no less than twenty feet from a reader as the RFID holder passes that particular location”);
With respect to the following limitations, Popkey teaches generating and sending one or more notifications to the first user or second user corresponding to usage of an entitlement of one or more entitlements (Popkey: Fig. 10/¶ 0058 and Fig. 11 /¶ 0060), but does not explicitly teach the following. However, Waytena teaches:
wherein the one or more entitlements provide access to a specific ride or experience at a selected time (Waytena: ¶ 0114 “the patron requests 302 a reservation for a selected attraction by entering the request using user interface 201 of PCD 102. The request may specify a particular time of day that the patron is interested in, or it may simply request the next available time”, and ¶ 0015-0017, ¶ 0114-0124, ¶ 0132-0133 showing full reservation process for a specific attraction, including a selected time for the group, where the group includes a number of guests/group members in addition to the patron; also see ¶ 0048-0055, ¶ 0128 the patron manages a group for which the reservation (entitlement) is assigned, including a plurality of users);
generate one or more additional notifications based on a change in entitlement status (Waytena: ¶ 0016-0017, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0125, ¶ 0161-0163 showing alerting patron PCD (patron communication device) upon a change in status with respect to a reservation for one or more users to an attraction at a specific time),
wherein the change in entitlement status occurs after the selected time for the one or more entitlements; and transmit the one or more additional notifications to one or more of the first user or the second user (Waytena: ¶ 0163 “additional alerts may be provided…if the reservation has not been claimed at the appropriate time”; also see ¶ 0164 “if a reserved time passes and the patron does not show up at the attraction within a predetermined or flexible grace period, PCD 102 detects the failure to receive the arrival message and enters state 515. In either case, the reservation is removed from local storage 206 and patron performance information, stored in 202, is updated to reflect the patron's arrival or failure to arrive in time for the reservation”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the entitlement being a reservation associated with a ride/attraction and notifying each users of status updates associated with the ride and the associated reservation of Waytena in the amusement park tracking system of Popkey/DePascale with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “One of the most difficult problems to solve in the design and operation of amusement parks is managing the queuing of patrons for rides and other attractions…Lines for very popular attractions can last many hours” (Waytena: ¶ 0004), and provide the benefit that “If an attraction malfunctions, or if some other factor necessitates a delay or cancellation of the patron's place in line, the patron typically feels extremely disappointed and frustrated at having wasted a significant amount of time in line. Therefore, it is advantageous to be able to inform patrons remotely when there is a problem with an attraction” (Waytena: ¶ 0009) and “This enables patrons to efficiently use their time while at the facility, increasing the number of attractions or services visited by the patrons, thereby increasing their enjoyment of the facility” (Waytena: ¶ 0208).
Claim 21: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 19. Popkey as modified above further teaches:
wherein the graphic user interface comprises: a first screen operable to select an entitlement of the one or more entitlements (Popkey: Fig. 4 and ¶ 0054, ¶ 0058 showing home screen with a button for selecting the “Zoomline” queue service option 90);
a second screen operable to designate the second user to receive the entitlement (Popkey: ¶ 0058 showing “if the patron selects the ZOOMLINE® queue service option 90, then he will be presented with a patron administration screen 140” as per Fig. 9, which shows currently activated second users with wristbands);
and a third screen to confirm the allocation of the entitlement to the second user (Popkey: Fig. 10 and ¶ 0058 showing “Wristband activation 142 brings the patron to the patron ID activation screen 154, see FIG. 10. From this activation screen 154, the patron can, among other things, create a user name 156, determine whether he wants to be notified 158 with every user ID use and can choose to activate 160 each particular ID”)
Claims 3, 7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170200319 A1 to Popkey et al. (Popkey) in view of US 20140225730 A1 to DePascale, further in view of US 20130151296 A1 to Waytena et al. (Waytena), and further in view of US 20190304216 A1 to Mendelson et al. (Mendelson).
Claim 3: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the plurality of sensors includes short-range sensors and long-range sensors,
the short-range sensors having a detection range of less than 1 foot and the long-range sensors having a detection range of up to 90 feet
Popkey teaches that “Long range readers located throughout the venue will be able to capture RFID location up to no less than twenty feet from a reader as the RFID holder passes that particular location,” and “The RFID holder merely needs to place their bracelet two inches from the reader at any location for any deduction to take place from the bracelet,” i.e. detection range less than 1 foot (Popkey: ¶ 0051), but does not explicitly state the long-range sensors having a detection range of up to 90 feet as claimed. However, Mendelson teaches that “Sensors configured to detect and/or track the hardware may have different ranges (e.g., sensors may have a short-range, such as corresponding to a max of a few inches, while other sensors may have a long-range, such as corresponding to roughly 90 ft) and may be placed throughout the destination at locations to sense and track the movement of users and/or objects” (Mendelson: ¶ 0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the plurality of long/short range sensor ranges of Mendelson in the amusement park tracking system of Popkey/DePascale/Waytena with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “enable improved customer service and/or guest experience, improved operational performance and/or efficiency for one or more of the entertainment activities, or other available facilities that a guest may participate with” (Mendelson: ¶ 0004).
Claim 7: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 1. Popkey, as modified above, further teaches:
further comprising one or more kiosks located within the geographic area (Popkey: ¶ 0062 showing reader kiosk inside the venue; also see ¶ 0050, ¶ 0052 showing venue kiosk/venue PCD),
wherein the one or more kiosks are operable to interact with the one or more tracking devices (Popkey: ¶ 0062 showing reader interacts with RFID wristband)
With respect to the remaining limitation:
and provide user-specific information including one or more of a point balance, a gamification status, or reservation details
Popkey teaches that “the ID holder can scan their RFID wristband, and then a request is sent to the system servers to check if the associated account, via its identification code for example, is active and has sufficient funds, and/or negotiable credits, available. If the account is clear, the payment is charged and the transaction recorded. A response is then sent back to the scanner, if successful, the LCD will display the current balance and “approve” the ID holder and he can pass the waiting line” (Popkey: ¶ 0062), which reads on providing user-specific information such as a “points balance” and “reservation details,” but Popkey/DePascale/Waytena do not explicitly teach also providing a “gamification status.” However, Mendelson teaches the use of kiosks located throughout a park for guest interaction or for use while waiting in line which may be used to access reservation information (Mendelson: ¶ 0007, ¶ 0065, ¶ 0095-0097, ¶ 0120-0125, ¶ 0134, ¶ 0158-0160), or play games and provide information on a point balance and gaming status (Mendelson: ¶ 0183, ¶ 0170-0172, ¶ 0206). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the ability to perform guest interactions via an in-park kiosk of Mendelson in the amusement park tracking system of Popkey/DePascale/Waytena with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “enable improved customer service and/or guest experience, improved operational performance and/or efficiency for one or more of the entertainment activities, or other available facilities that a guest may participate with” (Mendelson: ¶ 0004).
Claim 12: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Popkey/DePascale/Waytena do not explicitly teach, however, Mendelson teaches:
wherein the system is operable to: determine a proximity of a kiosk (Mendelson: ¶ 0065, ¶ 0095-0096, ¶ 0121 showing determining user is within predetermined proximity of a kiosk); and
transmit, based on the proximity, information related to the first account to the kiosk (Mendelson: ¶ 0121-0122, ¶ 0183 showing transmitting information about the detected user to the kiosk, and displaying relevant information on the kiosk)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the detection of the user within proximity of a kiosk and transmission of user information to the kiosk of Mendelson in the amusement park tracking system of Popkey/DePascale/Waytena with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “enable improved customer service and/or guest experience, improved operational performance and/or efficiency for one or more of the entertainment activities, or other available facilities that a guest may participate with” (Mendelson: ¶ 0004).
Claim 13: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena/Mendelson teach claim 12. Popkey, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the kiosk is operable to display, when one or more of the first user or the second user positions the one or more tracking devices within proximity of the kiosk, user-specific information including: one or more of a location, a point balance, a gamification status, or reservation details (Popkey: ¶ 0062 showing “the ID holder can scan their RFID wristband, and then a request is sent to the system servers to check if the associated account, via its identification code for example, is active and has sufficient funds, and/or negotiable credits, available. If the account is clear, the payment is charged and the transaction recorded. A response is then sent back to the scanner, if successful, the LCD will display the current balance and “approve” the ID holder and he can pass the waiting line”)
Claim 9-11 Are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170200319 A1 to Popkey et al. (Popkey) in view of US 20140225730 A1 to DePascale, further in view of US 20130151296 A1 to Waytena et al. (Waytena), and further in view of US 20210082256 A1 to Seyer.
Claim 9: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Popkey teaches a point-of-sale kiosk configured to add value to a tracking device/wristband (Popkey: see at least ¶ 0050, ¶ 0062), but Popkey/DePascale/Waytena do not explicitly teach the following functions of a point-of-sale device/kiosk. However, Seyer teaches:
further comprising a point-of-sale station including a ticket printer operable to print tickets with barcodes or QR codes corresponding to the one or more entitlements (Seyer: ¶ 0049-0051 showing printer device which is included on a kiosk used to print a ticket including a barcode or QR code corresponding to stored cash value on the ticket; also see ¶ 0065, ¶ 0044)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the kiosk printing functions to print tickets with barcodes/QR codes of Seyer in the kiosk of the amusement park tracking system of Popkey/DePascale/Waytena with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “other records of value may be less bulky, and offer other conveniences. For example, a gaming ticket containing a magnetic strip or bar code containing a record of available cash value may be accepted by the electronic gaming machine, and may offer a player the convenience of transferring or reloading a cash value” (Seyer: ¶ 0004).
Claim 10: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 9. With respect to the limitations:
wherein the point-of-sale station includes a payment terminal operable to accept various forms of payment, including credit cards, debit cards, and contactless payment methods,
Popkey teaches using credit cards at a point-of-sale device/kiosk in order to load funds to a wristband/account associated with the user (Popkey: ¶ 0050-0051), – but Popkey/DePascale/Waytena do not explicitly teach using debit cards or contactless payment as a payment means at a kiosk. However, Seyer teaches payment methods at a kiosk including debit cards (Seyer: ¶ 0007, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0045, ¶ 0056-0062 showing credit and debit card reader of the kiosk, i.e. gaming transaction device) and contactless payments (Seyer: ¶ 0071 showing the kiosk, i.e. gaming transaction device, may also include contactless payment technology; and ¶ 0119/¶ 0122-0123 showing credit/debit card reader includes RFID capability or wireless receiver). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the credit/debit card reader and contactless payment functions of the kiosk of Seyer in the kiosk of the amusement park tracking system of Popkey/DePascale/Waytena/Seyer with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “Such credit/debit card readers may allow the payment and redemption device 160 to be reduced in size, as less cash and/or casino chip storage capacity may be needed. This may allow more payment and redemption devices 160 to be located on the casino gaming floor, improving user experiences” (Seyer: ¶ 0053).
With respect to the remaining limitation:
for transactions related to user registrations, purchases, and rentals within the geographic area
Popkey teaches the transaction being associated with registering a user (Popkey: ¶ 0050-0051) or purchases within the amusement park/venue (Popkey: ¶ 0050-0051, ¶ 0065), but does not explicitly teach the transaction pertaining to rentals within the geographic area. However, Waytena teaches rentals in an outdoor area such as beaches, parks, resorts, theme parks, etc. (Waytena: ¶ 0047 “Upon initial entry into the park, and payment of a rental fee if necessary, the patron is provided with a PCD 102”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the rental of a PCD to a patron in the amusement park tracking system of Popkey/DePascale/Waytena/Seyer with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 11: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena/Seyer teach claim 10. Popkey, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the point-of-sale station is operable to communicate with the in-park network to update user accounts in real-time, the updating corresponding to the one or more entitlements (Popkey: ¶ 0018-0020, ¶ 0051, ¶ 0062 showing the reader devices configured to communicate with server via network to update balance upon usage of the wristband to skip a line/queue at a ride or attraction)
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170200319 A1 to Popkey et al. (Popkey) in view of US 20140225730 A1 to DePascale, further in view of US 20130151296 A1 to Waytena et al. (Waytena), and further in view of US 20170053268 A1 to Pande.
Claim 18: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 15. With respect to the following limitations, Popkey/DePascale/Waytena do not explicitly teach, however, Pande teaches:
wherein the user interface is operable to allow a first user account associated with the first user to specify that no user account be allowed to use more than a maximum number of the one or more entitlements shared between the first user account and a second user account associated with the second user (Pande: ¶ 0094 “For example if the digital wallet 100 is shared by various family members, all of the family members will be able to share the balance in the wallet, however, the children may have a lower transaction limit as compared to the parents. This will allow different users to have different limits over the same digital wallet”; see ¶ 0068, ¶ 0096, ¶ 0135 showing applicability to amusement parks/venues)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the setting of a maximum limit each user can use from a shared balance of Pande in the amusement park system of Popkey/DePascale/Waytena with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “some limits may be set in the digital wallet in order to protect the users from scenarios like excessive withdrawal, deposit or misuse by someone else” (Pande: ¶ 0129).
Claim 20: Popkey/DePascale/Waytena teach claim 19. With respect to the following limitations, Popkey/DePascale/Waytena do not explicitly teach, however, Pande teaches:
wherein the graphic user interface is operable to allow the first user account to specify that the second user account is not allowed to use more than a maximum number of the shared subset of the one or more entitlements (Pande: ¶ 0094 “For example if the digital wallet 100 is shared by various family members, all of the family members will be able to share the balance in the wallet, however, the children may have a lower transaction limit as compared to the parents. This will allow different users to have different limits over the same digital wallet”; see ¶ 0068, ¶ 0096, ¶ 0135 showing applicability to amusement parks/venues)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the setting of a maximum limit a particular user can use from a shared balance of Pande in the amusement park system of Popkey/DePascale/Waytena with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “some limits may be set in the digital wallet in order to protect the users from scenarios like excessive withdrawal, deposit or misuse by someone else” (Pande: ¶ 0129).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on (571) 272-5587. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628