Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office action is in reply to the Applicant amendment filed on 09 July 2026.
2. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-11, 14, 17 have been amended. Claims 13, 16, 18 have been cancelled.
3. Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea). Applicants have not amended now Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 19-20 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 19-20, Applicant argues that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, and the Examiner details the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the below rejection with further explanation. The claim recites an abstract idea because its primary, definitive function is filtering data, analyzing human preferences, and scheduling travel logistics—concepts that fall squarely under the Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity prongs of the USPTO abstract idea frameworks. The claims still recite Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships (The AI engine likely utilizes mathematical formulas (algorithms) for data analysis and optimization). Certain methods of organizing human activity – This category includes fundamental commercial practices, managing interactions between human beings, and travel or scheduling logistics. Planning an itinerary, evaluating travel/transportation times between locations, and filtering activities based on ratings or surveys are foundational methods of organizing human activity (specifically, tourism, logistics, and scheduling). Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Gathering information (ratings, preferences, popularity), analyzing it, and compiling a schedule or travel plan (an itinerary) is an intellectual information-processing task. Historically, humans have created travel itineraries using these exact parameters mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Utilizing a "large language model" or an "AI engine" to perform this data synthesis does not change the fact that the underlying step is a mathematical or logical compilation of data that mimics a human mental process. Applicant also mention several court case decisions and examples however the subject matter is different from Applicant’s claimed invention. In summary as indicated below through Steps 1-2B, the recitation of a computer (platform; device; AI engine; graphical user interface; server) to perform the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant submits that: (2) Carter et al. (Carter) (US 2019/0078900) in view of Hallivis (US 2023/0044482) does not teach or suggest in amended Claim 1 most of the amended claim limitations. With regard to argument (2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen below with further citations and clarification, the Examiner maintains this rejection. It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
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 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea because, despite including a physical object, its "character as a whole" is directed to an automated method of gathering information, analyzing it, and generating an itinerary, which is a method of organizing human activity and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 19-20 are each focused to a statutory category of invention, namely “platform; method” sets.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 19-20 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps for:
“a wooden, cube-shaped object including at least one symbol operable to be scanned by a mobile device;
a server including an artificial intelligence (AI) engine; and
a web scraper in a network communication with the server;
wherein, upon scanning of the at least one symbol by the mobile device, the AI engine generates an itinerary;
wherein the itinerary is based on a location of the wooden, cube-shaped object;
wherein the itinerary is further based on data collected from social media platforms, a survey, a transportation time from a location of the mobile device to a location associated with an itinerary item, seasonal popularity, and/or past ratings;
wherein the itinerary is displayed on a graphical user interface (GUI) on the mobile device;
wherein the itinerary is further based on a list of activities related to the location of the wooden, cube-shaped object compiled by the web scraper;
wherein the AI engine includes a large language model operable to integrate at least one pre-defined preference to generate the itinerary; and
wherein the at least one pre-defined preference is determined based on prior user ratings for activities stored in one or more mobile applications, or one or more websites, or the social media platforms”
As detailed in the MPEP 2106 and commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, the 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter. The 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2A, Prong One analysis focuses on whether a claim recites a judicial exception by evaluating if it falls into one of three specific groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity. Based on the provided steps above, the analysis for Step 2A Prong One is as follows:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. The AI engine likely utilizes mathematical formulas (algorithms) for data analysis and optimization.
Certain methods of organizing human activity –advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claim focuses on scanning a symbol to generate a tailored itinerary based on social media data, surveys, and seasonal popularity. This is considered an automated version of a "digital travel log" or a scheduling process that can be performed mentally or with pen-and-paper. These are “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. The claim involves managing a user’s itinerary by processing social media trends, user surveys, and ratings. Planning an itinerary, evaluating travel/transportation times between locations, and filtering activities based on ratings or surveys are foundational methods of organizing human activity (specifically, tourism, logistics, and scheduling).
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The itinerary generation process—evaluating locations, social media trends, and ratings—is a mental process that a human could hypothetically perform. The steps of assessing and comparing various data sources (surveys, popularity) to create an optimized itinerary can be performed in the human mind. Gathering information (ratings, preferences, popularity), analyzing it, and compiling a schedule or travel plan (an itinerary) is an intellectual information-processing task. Historically, humans have created travel itineraries using these exact parameters mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Utilizing a "large language model" or an "AI engine" to perform this data synthesis does not change the fact that the underlying step is a mathematical or logical compilation of data that mimics a human mental process.
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Prong Two: Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 19-20: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1-20 recite additional elements directed to “platform; device; AI engine; graphical user interface; server” (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 44-49). Therefore, the claims contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 19-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “platform; device; AI engine; graphical user interface; server”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 44-49) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “cube 100” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter et al. (Carter) (US 2019/0078900) in view of Hallivis (US 2023/0044482).
With regard to Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 14-15, 17, 19, Carter teaches a virtual concierge platform/method (concierge) for travel information (the scanning component processes video preview frames continuously in two separate threads, wherein one thread detects and can process barcodes representing content from a set of travel and recommendation mobile applications known to users of the kiosk 100) (see at least paragraphs 20-24), comprising:
a wooden, cube-shaped object (kiosk; display of the kiosk system; Users can also scan content from paper flyers, barcodes, or other physical objects; from a physical object) including at least one symbol operable to be scanned by a mobile device (QR code reader; kiosk; As illustrated in FIG. 1(a), example implementations described herein can involve a public display kiosk that can include an itinerary creation web application running on a public display 102; a camera 101 and processing unit 103 to scan mobile phone screens and documents; and a network-based multimedia messaging system to pass content between the mobile device and the kiosk. In example implementations, the scanning component processes video preview frames continuously in two separate threads, wherein one thread detects and can process barcodes representing content from a set of travel and recommendation mobile applications known to users of the kiosk 100. When the kiosk 100 detects supported content, the kiosk 100 extracts the embedded content (such as the title of a restaurant, museum, or other place of interest) and sends it to the public display 102 via the messaging system. The display 102 may involve a touch screen that facilitates input and output between the user and the kiosk system 100) (see at least paragraphs 6-9, 18-24);
wherein, upon scanning of the at least one symbol (bar code; QR code) by the mobile device, generates an itinerary (When users are satisfied with their selections, the user can take a photo of the itinerary on the public display screen, or use a bar code scanning application on their phone if they have one, to scan a QR code on the public display to download the itinerary to their device. In this manner, on-the-go tourists can leverage their personal devices and interactive public displays without sacrificing privacy through downloading additional third-party applications) (see at least paragraphs 20-24);
wherein the itinerary is based on a location of the wooden, cube-shaped object (This scanner allows users to share recommended sites with the display by simply having the camera of the kiosk system scan the mobile device screen. The kiosk system will automatically determine the site, add an event and/or location associated with the site to the current itinerary, and update a list of other recommended sites that complement the places currently listed in the itinerary. Users can also scan content from paper flyers, barcodes, or other physical objects depending on the desired implementation) (see at least paragraphs 18-24);
wherein the itinerary is further based on data collected from social media platforms (interactive digital signage configured to navigate to new environments, often using the displays in concert with their mobile devices, to explore unfamiliar areas. The large displays augment mobile device information by providing a curated set of sites and events specific to a particular place. They are also large enough to allow group discussion and collaboration. Finally, such related art public displays supply easily accessible local information when mobile device signal coverage is poor. However, people still want to access local information or navigate instructions on their mobile phones when away from a public display. Therefore, example implementations as described herein involve solutions that allow users to transfer data back and forth between displays and mobiles), a survey, a transportation time from a location of the mobile device to a location associated with an itinerary item, seasonal popularity, and/or past ratings (FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b) illustrate example system diagrams upon which example implementations may be applied. Specifically, FIG. 1(a) illustrates a kiosk system in accordance with an example implementation. Kiosk system 100 can include a camera 101, display 102, central processing unit (CPU) 103, memory 104 and network interface (I/F) 105. As illustrated in FIG. 1(a), example implementations described herein can involve a public display kiosk that can include an itinerary creation web application running on a public display 102; a camera 101 and processing unit 103 to scan mobile phone screens and documents; and a network-based multimedia messaging system to pass content between the mobile device and the kiosk. In example implementations, the scanning component processes video preview frames continuously in two separate threads, wherein one thread detects and can process barcodes representing content from a set of travel and recommendation mobile applications known to users of the kiosk 100. When the kiosk 100 detects supported content, the kiosk 100 extracts the embedded content (such as the title of a restaurant, museum, or other place of interest) and sends it to the public display 102 via the messaging system. The display 102 may involve a touch screen that facilitates input and output between the user and the kiosk system 100) (see at least paragraphs 18-24);
wherein the itinerary is displayed on a graphical user interface (GUI) on the mobile device (integrate an itinerary scanner with a public kiosk system that allows people to build itineraries using a combination of information from a public display and from their own mobile device. They can do this independently on the display of the kiosk system, or work with others to create and edit itineraries collaboratively without installing a special application. Users can build an itinerary using suggested recommendations shown on the public display, or contribute their own personal recommendations to the display via a camera-based scanner integrated into the kiosk system. This scanner allows users to share recommended sites with the display by simply having the camera of the kiosk system scan the mobile device screen. The kiosk system will automatically determine the site, add an event and/or location associated with the site to the current itinerary, and update a list of other recommended sites that complement the places currently listed in the itinerary. Users can also scan content from paper flyers, barcodes, or other physical objects depending on the desired implementation) (see at least paragraphs 18-24);
wherein the itinerary is further based on a list of activities related to the location of the wooden, cube-shaped object (integrate an itinerary scanner with a public kiosk system that allows people to build itineraries using a combination of information from a public display and from their own mobile device. They can do this independently on the display of the kiosk system, or work with others to create and edit itineraries collaboratively without installing a special application. Users can build an itinerary using suggested recommendations shown on the public display, or contribute their own personal recommendations to the display via a camera-based scanner integrated into the kiosk system. This scanner allows users to share recommended sites with the display by simply having the camera of the kiosk system scan the mobile device screen. The kiosk system will automatically determine the site, add an event and/or location associated with the site to the current itinerary, and update a list of other recommended sites that complement the places currently listed in the itinerary. Users can also scan content from paper flyers, barcodes, or other physical objects depending on the desired implementation) (see at least paragraphs 18-24);
wherein the at least one pre-defined preference is determined based on prior user ratings for activities (the kiosk system can also be configured to detect text known to have a specific pattern, such as an address or a telephone number. For example, because addresses and telephone numbers have a specific structure (e.g., a fixed set of numbers which may include dashes, zip codes, street names, etc.). For example, as illustrated in FIG. 3(b), the address is detected based on the expected structure of a street, city name, and state found in the vicinity of a zip code, however, the example implementations are not limited thereto, and other structures can be utilized to detect addresses and telephone numbers in accordance with the desired implementation. Once such information is detected, the kiosk system can then conduct a search based on information stored in the memory of the kiosk, or from a search given to a backend system as illustrated in FIG. 1(b), to determine the corresponding destination and location) stored in one or more mobile applications, or one or more websites, or the social media platforms (integrate an itinerary scanner with a public kiosk system that allows people to build itineraries using a combination of information from a public display and from their own mobile device. They can do this independently on the display of the kiosk system, or work with others to create and edit itineraries collaboratively without installing a special application. Users can build an itinerary using suggested recommendations shown on the public display, or contribute their own personal recommendations to the display via a camera-based scanner integrated into the kiosk system. This scanner allows users to share recommended sites with the display by simply having the camera of the kiosk system scan the mobile device screen. The kiosk system will automatically determine the site, add an event and/or location associated with the site to the current itinerary, and update a list of other recommended sites that complement the places currently listed in the itinerary. Users can also scan content from paper flyers, barcodes, or other physical objects depending on the desired implementation) (see at least paragraphs 18-24, 40);
Carter does not specifically teach a server including an artificial intelligence (AI) engine/ the AI engine/a/by the web scraper in a network communication with the server/ wherein the AI engine includes a large language model operable to integrate at least one pre-defined preference to generate the itinerary. Hallivis teaches a server including an artificial intelligence (AI) engine/ the AI engine (FIG. 3 which shows an artificial intelligence (AI) screen, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. The planning module, using the personalized AI module may display the trip information in an organized, brief, and orderly manner to the user. The planning module may act as a travel companion of the user providing the trip information wherein required. The screen in FIG. 3 shows the city, baggage claim location, average wait times, rideshare availability, maps, costs, entertainment options, etc; information related to airlines, including, for example, without limitation, flight itineraries, ticket purchases, airline flight policies, etc. Reviews may include reviews related to travel-related activities. Food delivery may provide a user with food delivery options near the user's location. Movies may display information related to local theaters, including, but not limited to, showtimes, distances, prices, etc. Restaurants may include information related to local restaurants and bars. Concierge services may include concierge activities such as, without limitation, booking hotel rooms, making restaurant reservations, etc. Rideshare may include information related to local rideshare options)/a web scraper in a network communication with the server/wherein the AI engine includes a large language model operable to integrate at least one pre-defined preference to generate the itinerary (The search bar may be used to find new applications or widgets to add to the travel category screens. Airlines may include information related to airlines, including, for example, without limitation, flight itineraries, ticket purchases, airline flight policies, etc. Reviews may include reviews related to travel-related activities. Food delivery may provide a user with food delivery options near the user's location. Movies may display information related to local theaters, including, but not limited to, showtimes, distances, prices, etc. Restaurants may include information related to local restaurants and bars. Concierge services may include concierge activities such as, without limitation, booking hotel rooms, making restaurant reservations, etc.) in analogous art of assisting an individual t plan a trip for the purposes of: “Disclosed is a system and method can assist people with their travel needs. Disclosed is a artificial intelligence based personalized travel dashboard that can provide personalized information to the user, thus making the process of planning a trip easier and comfortable” (see at least paragraphs 84-86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the expandable personalized travel dashboard as taught by Hallivis in the system of Carter, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With regards to Claims 2, 12, Carter teaches wherein the at least one symbol includes at least one Quick Response (QR) code (see at least paragraph 19).
With regard to Claim 3, 14, 19, Carter teaches wherein the large language model is operable to generate descriptions of events in the itinerary, wherein the descriptions of the events in the itinerary are displayed via the GUI on the mobile device (see at least paragraph 54).
With regard to Claim 4, Carter teaches wherein the server is operable to send information about a property in which the wooden, cube-shaped object is located, wherein the information includes a wireless network password for a wireless network accessible from the property, and wherein the GUI on the mobile device provides for the mobile device to connect to the wireless network using the wireless network password upon selection of a GUI element including the wireless network password (see at least paragraphs 6-9, 39).
With regard to Claim 5, Carter teaches wherein the GUI includes an address for each activity of the itinerary, wherein activation of the address via the GUI opens a map application on the mobile device including directions from the location of the mobile device to a location of the activity (see at least paragraph 22).
With regard to Claim 6, Carter teaches to receive feedback and update the itinerary based at least in part on the feedback (see at least paragraph 20).
With regard to Claim 7, Carter teaches updates the data collected from the social media platforms, the survey, the transportation time from the location of the mobile device to the location associated with the itinerary item, the seasonal popularity, and/or the past ratings at predetermined intervals (see at least paragraphs 41, 50).
With regard to Claims 8, 11 Carter teaches wherein the wooden, cube-shaped object includes a global positioning system (GPS) sensor (see at least paragraphs 6-9, 34).
With regard to Claim 10 Carter teaches further comprising the wooden, cube-shaped object including internal electronics capable of transferring energy from the power source to the mobile device to charge the mobile device (see at least paragraphs 6-9, 18-20, 56-61).
With regard to Claim 20, Carter teaches a GUI admin page operable to customize a property-specific welcome page displayed on the GUI of the mobile device upon the scanning of the at least one symbol by the mobile device (see at least paragraphs 27, 36, 49).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Connolly et al. (US 2018/0315107)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
