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. The following is a non-final, First Office Action on the merits. Claim 1-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
3. Claims 3, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention:
Dependent claim 3 recites: “the system of claim 1, wherein the video content module is configured to deliver a secondary video with additional product details upon completion of the transaction associated with the product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the transaction” in the claim. Appropriated correction is required.
Dependent claim 10 recites: “the method of claim 8, wherein the AI module of the central server tracks……”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the AI module” in the claim”. Appropriated correction is required.
Dependent claim 12 recites ““the method of claim 8, further comprises detecting, by the AI module…….”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the AI module” in the claim”. Appropriated correction is required.
Independent claim 15 initially limitation 6 recites “storing the discount code in a loyalty program account……for redemption at a point-of-sale (POS) device”. However, limitation 7 then recites “redeeming the discount code at a point-of-sale device during a product transaction…….”. The scope of these limitations are confusing since it is unclear whether “a point-of-sale device” in limitation 7 is referring back to “a point-of-sale (POS) device” in limitation 6? For the purpose of examination, the Examiner construes that “a point-of-sale device” in limitation 7 is referring back to “a point-of-sale (POS) device” in limitation 6. Appropriated 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.
4. The claimed invention (Claims 1-15) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, which has/have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
5. Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a statutory Category?
Claims 1-7: Yes, these claims are systems, which recite a mobile device configured to scan….; a central server in communication with the mobile device, the central server comprising………and therefore are directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
Claims 8-14: Yes, these claims are method, and therefore are directed to the statutory class of process.
Claim 15: Yes, claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium…., which is interpreted as a system because it recites one or more processors…. to execute…., and therefore are directed to the statutory class of machine.
6. Step 2A prong 1, Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B:
Independent claim 15 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to an abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”:
Independent claim 15, limitations 3-4 and 7-8 of verifying user eligibility before streaming the video content (limitation 3); generating, upon completion of the video content, a unique discount code (part of limitation 4); recording user interactions with the video content in a consumer profile (part of limitation 5); redeeming the discount code during a product transaction, link the transaction with video engagement data recorded in the loyalty program account (part of limitation 7); and tracking user engagement data to generate targeted recommendations for additional products based on past viewing history (limitation 8) fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of commercial or legal interactions (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
Independent claim 15, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites underlined additional elements (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to perform …..; a central server/the central server; a data storage module/the data storage module; an age verification module; a point-of sale (POS device); an artificial intelligence (AI) module… ) to perform abstract steps/limitations 3-4 and 7-8 mentioned above. The additional element(s) in all of the steps is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using a generic computer component(s) (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to perform …..; a central server/the central server; a data storage module/the data storage module; an age verification module; a point-of sale (POS device); an artificial intelligence (AI) module…..….); thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 15, the steps/limitations 1-2, 4-7 of receiving, from a mobile device, a scan of a machine-readable code associated with a product (limitation 1); retrieving, by a central server, product-specific video content stored in a data storage module, and streaming the video content to the mobile device (limitation 2); transmitting the discount code to the mobile device for display (part of limitation 4); recording user interactions with the video content in a consumer profile stored in the data storage module (limitation 5); storing the discount code in a loyalty program account associated with the user for redemption at a point-of-sale (POS) device (limitation 6); and video engagement data stored in the loyalty program account on the central server (part of limitation 7) are receiving data; storing data and transmitting data/displaying data, which are considered as insignificant extra solution activity; thus, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the additional element of “a mobile device/the mobile device” in steps/limitations 1, 2, 4 mentioned above are merely recited a source and destination, where information has been received from and sent to; which are considered as general link to technological environment; thus, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Again, these above additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, again, the additional element of using generic computer components (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to perform …..; a central server/the central server; a data storage module/the data storage module; an age verification module; a point-of sale (POS device); an artificial intelligence (AI) module…..) to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. see MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above-mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Independent claim 15 (step 2B): The additional element in claim 15 “ i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to perform …..; a central server/the central server; a data storage module/the data storage module; an age verification module; a point-of sale (POS device); an artificial intelligence (AI) module…….) is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the underlined additional elements “i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to perform …..; a central server/the central server; a data storage module/the data storage module; an age verification module; a point-of sale (POS device); an artificial intelligence (AI) module…” is/are amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 3-4 and 7-8 mentioned above; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 15, the steps/limitations 1-2, 4-7 of receiving, from a mobile device, a scan of a machine-readable code associated with a product (limitation 1); retrieving, by a central server, product-specific video content stored in a data storage module, and streaming the video content to the mobile device (limitation 2); transmitting the discount code to the mobile device for display (part of limitation 4); recording user interactions with the video content in a consumer profile stored in the data storage module (limitation 5); storing the discount code in a loyalty program account associated with the user for redemption at a point-of-sale (POS) device (limitation 6); and video engagement data stored in the loyalty program account on the central server (part of limitation 7) are receiving data; storing data and transmitting data/displaying data, which are considered as insignificant extra solution activity; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the additional element of “a mobile device/the mobile device” in steps/limitations 1, 2, 4 mentioned above are merely recited a source and destination, where information has been received from and sent to; which are considered as general link to technological environment; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
When reevaluating the steps/limitations 1-2, 4-7 of receiving, from a mobile device, a scan of a machine-readable code associated with a product (limitation 1); retrieving, by a central server, product-specific video content stored in a data storage module, and streaming the video content to the mobile device (limitation 2); transmitting the discount code to the mobile device for display (part of limitation 4); recording user interactions with the video content in a consumer profile stored in the data storage module (limitation 5); storing the discount code in a loyalty program account associated with the user for redemption at a point-of-sale (POS) device (limitation 6); and video engagement data stored in the loyalty program account on the central server (part of limitation 7) in step 2B here, receiving data, storing data and transmitting data/displaying data are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer to receive information, store information and/or transmit information/send information through an unspecified generic computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence as required by Berkheimer’s memo).
Furthermore, receiving, from a mobile device, a scan of a machine-readable code associated with a product (limitation 1) is taught in many art. For example, this limitation is taught in at least: {Alford et al; (US 2024/0127280 A1) in para 0018 in context with paras 0008, 0012, fig. 1 paras 0030-0031}; {Kang et al; (US 2023/0401595 A1) in at least paras 0016, 0018, 0055}; {Karkare et al; (US 2021/0295419 A1) in at least para 0063}; {Xing (US 2017/0293740 A) in at least paras 0007, 0047}; {Mason-Gugenheim et al; (US 2017/0228760 A1) in at least Abstract, paras 0026, 0039}; and {Priebatsch; (US 2015/0242892 A1) in at least paras 0007, 0046}.
Thus, evidences have been provided above to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.07 (a) (III). Viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above steps again do not amount to significantly more because these steps in combination merely applying the abstract idea to a generic computer and insignificant extra solution activity. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As per independent claims 1 and 8: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same/similar analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, a system claim 1 and a method claim 8 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same/similar reasons as the system claim(s) 15. The additional underlined components (i.e., a mobile device; a central server in communication with the mobile device…, a data storage module, a video content module, an age verification module, a discount module, an artificial intelligence (AI) module, and a point-of-sale (POS) device …) described in independent claims 1 and 8 are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the underlined additional elements “i.e., a mobile device; a central server in communication with the mobile device…, a data storage module, a video content module, an age verification module, a discount module, an artificial intelligence (AI) module, and a point-of-sale (POS) device” is/are amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) in claims 1 and 8; therefore, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application; and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. As the result, these additional elements add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) 1 and 8 are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 9-14 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1 and 8 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combinations adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, dependent 2-7, and 9-14 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caidar et al; (US 2021/0065246 A1), in view of Liu et al; (US 2023/0376920 A1), in view of Alford et al; (US 2024/0127280 A1); and further in view of Ramde et al; (US 2024/0428323 A1):
9. Independent claim 1: Caidar teaches a system for managing content delivery related to a product, comprising:
a mobile device (para 0008, fig. 1 paras 0030-0031) configured to scan a machine-readable code affixed to a physical product (para 0018) (limitation 1) {At least para 0018 in context with paras 0008, 0012, fig. 1 paras 0030-0031, 0036};
a central server (fig. 1 paras 0030-0050) in communication with the mobile device {At least fig. 1 paras 0030-0032 in context with paras 0008, 0012-0013, 0018} , the central server comprising (limitation 2):
a data storage module for storing product-specific content (At least paras 0013-0016, fig. 1 paras 0032-0035), and user interaction data (At least paras 0019-0022, 0039) (limitation 2a) {At least paras 0013-0016, fig. 1 paras 0032-0035; and paras 0019-0022, 0039},
a video content module configured to retrieve and stream video content (paras 0002 in context with paras 0013, 0033, 0038, fig. 1), associated with the product to the mobile device (para 0018 in context with Abstract, paras 0008, 0012, 0021, 0033, 0038, 0045) (limitation 2b) {At least para 0018 in context with Abstract, paras 0002, 0008, 0012, 0014, 0021, fig. 1: especially para 0038-0039, 0045},
determining that the user viewing the stream video content (part of limitation 2d) {At least paras 0036-0040};
personalize content distribution based on user behavior (part of limitation 3e) {At least paras 0008, 0038-0050 especially paras 0049- 0050}.
However, Caidar does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “an age verification module to authenticate user eligibility to register in loyalty program based on regulatory requirements before content delivery” (limitation 2c).
Liu teaches a general concept of an age verification module to authenticate user eligibility to register in program based on regulatory requirements before content delivery (part of limitation 2c) {At least paras 0040-0041}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “a video content module configured to retrieve and stream video content associated with the product to the mobile device” of Caidar to include “an age verification module to authenticate user eligibility to register in program based on regulatory requirements before content delivery”, taught by Liu. One would be motivated to do this authenticating a user's age eligibility before content delivery offers significant benefits, primarily driven by regulatory requirements. It helps protect minors, minimizes legal and financial risks for businesses, and builds a foundation of consumer trust.
However, the combination of Caidar and Liu does not explicitly teach the underlined features: an age verification module to authenticate user eligibility to register in loyalty program based on regulatory requirements before content delivery (part of limitation 2c); a discount module configured to generate a unique discount code upon completion of video viewing the stream video content (part of limitation 2d), and a point-of-sale (POS) device configured to redeem discount codes generated by the central server in association with the loyalty program (limitation 3).
Alford teaches a general concept of:
user register in loyalty program {At least para 0020 in context with para 0012},
a discount module configured to generate a unique discount code (e.g., coupon code, or a gift card, or prepaid debit card…etc., in para 0023) upon completion of video viewing video content {At least fig. 2 paras 0027-0028 in context with paras 0021-0023, 0025},
a point-of sale (POS) device configured to redeem discount codes (e.g., coupon code, or a gift card, or prepaid debit card…etc., in para 0023 in context with paras 0012-0013, 0028) generated in association with the loyalty program {Paras 0023, 0025 in context with paras 0012-0013, 0028}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “a video content module configured to retrieve and stream video content associated with the product to the mobile device; determining that the user viewing the stream video content; and an age verification module to authenticate user eligibility to register in program based on regulatory requirements before content delivery” of the combination of Caidar and Liu to include “user register in loyalty program; a discount module configured to generate a unique discount code upon completion of video viewing video content; and a point-of sale (POS) device configured to redeem discount codes generated in association with the loyalty program”, taught by Alford to that the combination of Caidar, Liu and Alford would yield: “a video content module configured to retrieve and stream video content associated with the product to the mobile device, an age verification module to authenticate user eligibility to register in loyalty program based on regulatory requirements before content delivery, a discount module configured to generate a unique discount code upon completion of video viewing the stream video content; and a point-of-sale (POS) device configured to redeem discount codes generated by the central server in association with the loyalty program”. One would be motivated to do this in order to since the loyalty program of offering unique discount code(s) for watching advertisement video(s) provides significant benefits for both the user and the business. This encourages the customer to watch the advertisement video; creates an engaging customer journey, from content/advertisement consumption to a purchase at the point of sale (POS).
However, the combination of Caidar, Liu and Alford does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “an artificial intelligence (Al) module to personalize content distribution based on user behavior in the loyalty program (part of limitation 3e).
Ramde teaches a general concept of an artificial intelligence (Al) module to personalize content distribution based on user behavior in a loyalty program (para 0088) {At least fig. 5 paras 0091-0094 especially para 0094 in context with para 0088}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “personalize content distribution based on user behavior” of the combination of Caidar, Liu and Alford to include “an artificial intelligence (Al) module to personalize content distribution based on user behavior in a loyalty program”, taught by Ramde. One would be motivated to do this in order to generate and deliver highly relevant personalized content, offers, and communications. This deep level of AI personalization resonates more strongly with users, leading to increased engagement and higher satisfaction.
10. Claim 2: The combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the machine-readable code comprises a quick response (QR) code, barcode, or near-field communication (NFC) tag to enable connection between the mobile device and the central server {Caidar: para 0018, see QR code}.
11. Claim 6: The combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the POS device links each product transaction with the video engagement data stored in the central server {Caidar: At least paras 0039-0050}, and also {Alford: At least para 0026 in context with para 0028}, allowing commission tracking based on the consumer’s interaction history {Alford: At least para 0026 in context with fig. 2 paras 0028}.
12. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caidar et al; (US 2021/0065246 A1), in view of Liu et al; (US 2023/0376920 A1), in view of Alford et al; (US 2024/0127280 A1); in view of Ramde et al; (US 2024/0428323 A1), and further in view of Loyd et al; (US 2016/0328775 A1):
13. Claim 3: The combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. As indicated in claim 1, the combination of Caidar, Liu Alford and Ramde especially Caidar teaches a video content module configured to retrieve and stream video content associated with the product to the mobile device {Caidar: At least para 0018 in context with Abstract, paras 0002, 0008, 0012, 0014, 0021, fig. 1: especially para 0038-0039, 0045}. The combination further teaches completion of the transaction associated with the product after the user viewing the video {Caidar: At least paras 0036-0050}.
However, the combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein the video content module is configured to deliver a secondary video with additional product details upon completion of the transaction associated with the product”.
Lloyd teaches a general concept of deliver a video with additional product details upon completion of the transaction (e.g., post-purchased) associated with a product {At least para 0066}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “a video content module configured to retrieve and stream video content associated with the product to the mobile device; and completion of the transaction associated with the product after the user viewing the video” of the combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde especially Caidar to include “deliver a video with additional product details upon completion of the transaction (e.g., post-purchased) associated with a product”, taught by Lloyd. One would be motivated to do this in order to enhance the post-purchases experiences and increase the purchaser’s satisfaction since for example, sharing tips, tricks, and different ways to use the product provides continued value to the customer after they have already paid.
14. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caidar et al; (US 2021/0065246 A1), in view of Liu et al; (US 2023/0376920 A1), in view of Alford et al; (US 2024/0127280 A1); in view of Ramde et al; (US 2024/0428323 A1), and further in view of Aviyam et al; (US 2021/0200943 A1):
15. Claim 4: The combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein the Al module distributes product-specific content to third-party platforms to increase product visibility in online retail environments.”
Aviyam teaches a general concept of distributes product-specific content to third-party platforms to increase product visibility in online retail environments {At least paras 0205, 0248, 0251, 0270}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “the AI module” of the combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde to include “distributes product-specific content to third-party platforms to increase product visibility in online retail environments”, taught by Aviyam. One would be motivated to do this since distributing product-specific content to third-party platforms significantly increases product visibility by expanding brand reach, improving search rankings, and leveraging trust and engagement. This strategy ensures a consistent customer experience and provides access to new markets and targeted audiences.
16. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caidar et al; (US 2021/0065246 A1), in view of Liu et al; (US 2023/0376920 A1), in view of Alford et al; (US 2024/0127280 A1); in view of Ramde et al; (US 2024/0428323 A1), and further in view of Ramer et al; (US 2014/0180825 A1):
17. Claim 5: The combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches a session management module on the central server, configured to store session details, including video viewing {Caidar: At least paras 0036-0050}, consumer interactions {Caidar: see e.g., buyer purchased the product after viewing the video in paras 0036-0050}, and generated discount code {Alford: At least para 0022, fig. 2 para 0028 in context with para 0023 indicate a reward such as coupon code is provided to the user in the rewards back after the user finishing watching/viewing the video}, enabling personalized recommendations {Caidar: At least paras 0036-0050 especially para 0049-0050}.
However, the combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde especially Caidar and Alford does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “a session management module on the central server, configured to store session details, including video viewing duration, enabling personalized recommendations ”.
Ramer teaches store session details, including video viewing duration (para 0059) , enabling personalized recommendations (Abstract) {At least para 0059 in context with Abstract)}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “a session management module on the central server, configured to store session details, including video viewing, consumer interactions, and generated discount codes, enabling personalized recommendations” of the combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde especially Caidar and Alford to include “store session details, including video viewing duration, enabling personalized recommendations”, taught by Ramer. One would be motivated to do this in order to enrich the user/customer collected data (e.g., to include user content/video viewing duration) for better targeting advertisement/ content to the user/customer.
18. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caidar et al; (US 2021/0065246 A1), in view of Liu et al; (US 2023/0376920 A1), in view of Alford et al; (US 2024/0127280 A1); in view of Ramde et al; (US 2024/0428323 A1), and further in view Mason-Gugenheim et al; (US 20170228760 A1):
19. Claim 7: The combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches the discount module is configured to generate multiple discounts codes for different video views {Alford: At least paras 0012 discloses the viewer is compensated via rewards for each advertisement (e.g., each video in para 0013) viewed and the rewards are stored in a rewards bank. Para 0023 discloses the reward may be in the form of e.g., coupon code. At least pars 0028 discloses the user watches/views multiple advertisement videos to earn rewards. The Examiner notes these paras construes generate multiple discount codes/ coupon codes for different video views}.
However, the combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde especially Alford does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein the discount module is configured to consolidate multiple discount codes from different video views into a single code for simplified checkout at the point of sale.”
Mason-Gugenheim teaches a general concept of consolidate multiple discount offers into a single code for simplified checkout at the point of sale {At least para 0027}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “the discount module is configured to generate multiple discounts codes for different video views; and the point of sale” of the combination of Caidar, Liu, Alford and Ramde to include “consolidate multiple discount offers into a single code for simplified checkout at the point of sale”, taught by Mason-Gugenheim. One would be motivated to do this in order to streamline the coupon offer redemption process at the point of sale {Mason_Gugenheim: At least para 0027}.
20. Claims 8, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caidar et al; (US 2021/0065246 A1), in view of Alford et al; (US 2024/0127280 A1):
21. Independent claim 8: Caidar teaches a method for managing content delivery related to a product, comprising:
receiving, from a mobile device (para 0008, fig. 1 paras 0030-0031), a scan of a machine-readable code associated or affixed with a product (para 0018) (step 1) {At least para 0018 in context with paras 0008, 0012, fig. 1 paras 0030-0031};
retrieving, by a central server, a product-specific short video (e.g., video advertisement/ video clip in paras 0008, 0012) stored in a data storage module (At least paras 0013-0016, fig. 1 paras 0032-0035) and streaming the video (paras 0002 in context with paras 0013, 0033, 0038, fig. 1) at the mobile device (para 0018 in context with Abstract, paras 0008, 0012, 0021, 0033, 0038, 0045) (step 2) {At least para 0018 in context with Abstract, paras 0002, 0008, 0012, 0014, 0021, fig. 1: especially para 0038-0039, 0045};
recording, by the central server, user interactions (e.g., played and viewed the video in para 0036, purchased product associated with viewing the video in paras 0036-0050) with the product-specific short video in a consumer profile (paras 0046-0050 in context with paras 0036-0045) stored on the central server (step 4) {At least paras 0036-0050};
a transaction involving the product (part of step 5) {At least paras 0036-0050}.
However, Caidar does not explicitly teach the underlined features: generating, by the central server, a unique discount code upon completion of the short video at the mobile device and displaying the discount code on the mobile device (step 3); and redeeming the discount code at a point-of-sale device during a transaction involving the product (step 5)
Alford teaches:
generating, a unique discount code (e.g., coupon code, or a gift card, or prepaid debit card…etc., in para 0023) upon completion of the short video (e.g., advertisement video in paras 0027-0028, 0021-0023) at the mobile device and displaying the discount code on the mobile device (para 0028 in context with para 0023 indicate the user is rewarded with e.g., a coupon code upon completion of watching the video on the user mobile device) {At least fig. 2 paras 0027-0028 in context with paras 0021-0023}; and
redeeming the discount code at a point-of-sale device during a transaction involving the product (step 5) {At least paras 0022-0023, 0025 especially paras 0023, 0025}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “retrieving, by a central service, a product-specific short video stored in a data storage module and streaming the video at the mobile device” of Caidar to include “generating, a unique discount code upon completion of the short video at the mobile device and displaying the discount code on the mobile device; and redeeming the discount code at a point-of-sale device during a transaction involving the product”, taught by Alford. One would be motivated to do this since offering unique discount code(s) for watching advertisement video(s); and allowing the user to redeem the earned discount code provides significant benefits for both the user and the business. This encourages the customer to watch the advertisement video; creates an engaging customer journey, from content/advertisement consumption to a purchase at the point of sale (POS).
22. Claim 11: The combination of Caidar and Alford teaches the claimed invention as in claim 8. The combination further teaches wherein the generated discount code (para 0023) is stored in a loyalty program (Alford: para 0020 in context with para 0012) account (Alford: e.g., viewer’s reward bank account in para 0022, 0028) associated with the user and is redeemable for future purchases {Alford: At least paras 0022, 0028 in context with para 0023}.
23. Claim 12: The combination of Caidar and Alford teaches the claimed invention as in claim 8. The combination further teaches detecting, by the Al module (Alford: para 0018), user viewing completion {Alford: At least para 0022 in context with para 0018} and issuing a follow-up notification prompting additional engagement with related products {Alford: At least para 0022 in context with para 0018}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “generating…, a unique discount code upon completion of the short video at the mobile device….” of the combination of Caidar and Alford especially Alford to include “detecting, by the Al module, user viewing completion and issuing a follow-up notification prompting additional engagement with related products”, taught by Alford. One would be motivated to do this in order to drives higher conversion rates, increases engagement, and provides deeper audience insights.
24. Claim 14: The combination of Caidar and Alford teaches the claimed invention as in claim 8. The combination further teaches generating another discount code when the consumer watches the secondary video, and adding this another discount code to a loyalty program (Alford: para 0020 in context with para 0012) account (Alford: e.g., viewer’s reward bank account in para 0022, 0028) for future use at a point of sale (para 0023) {Alford: At least paras 0012 discloses the viewer is compensated via rewards for each advertisement (e.g., each video in para 0013) viewed and the rewards are stored in a rewards bank. Para 0023 discloses the reward may be in the form of e.g., coupon code, and is redeemed at the point of sale. At least para 0028 discloses the viewer/user watches/views multiple advertisement videos to earn rewards. The Examiner notes since the viewer is rewarded (e.g., coupon code) for each advertisement viewed, the viewer/user watches/views multiple advertisement videos to earn rewards, and the rewards (e.g., coupon code) are stored in rewards bank for redeeming at point of sale; this construes that “generating another discount code when the consumer watches the secondary video, and adding this another discount code to a loyalty program”.
25. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caidar et al; (US 2021/0065246 A1), in view of Alford et al; (US 2024/0127280 A1), and further in view of Liu et al; (US 2023/0376920 A1):
26. Claim 9: The combination of Caidar and Alford teaches the claimed invention as in claim 8. The combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “verifying, by the central server, user eligibility through an age verification module before video content streaming.”
Liu teaches a general concept of verifying user eligibility through an age verification module before video content streaming {At least paras 0040-0041}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “retrieving, by a central server, a product-specific short video stored in a data storage module and streaming the video at the mobile device” of the combination of Caidar and Alford especially Caidar to include “verifying user eligibility through an age verification module before video content streaming”, taught by Liu. One would be motivated to do this authenticating a user's age eligibility before content delivery offers significant benefits, primarily driven by regulatory requirements. It helps protect minors, minimizes legal and financial risks for businesses, and builds a foundation of consumer trust.
27. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caidar et al; (US 2021/0065246 A1), in view of Alford et al; (US 2024/0127280 A1), and further in view of Buzzell et al; (US 2023/0377023 A1):
28. Claim 10: The combination of Caidar and Alford teaches the claimed invention as in claim 8. The combination further teaches wherein the central server tracks user engagement data {Caidar: At least paras 0036-0050}.
However, the combination of Caidar and Alford does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “the Al module of the central server tracks user engagement data and generates targeted recommendations for additional products based on past viewing history.
Buzzell teaches an AI module (e.g., artificial intelligence engine in para 0212) tracks user engagement data and generates targeted recommendations for additional products based on past viewing history {At least paras 0212, 0208 in context with para 0206}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “wherein the central server tracks user engagement data” of the combination of Caidar and Alford to include “AI module tracks user engagement data and generates targeted recommendations for additional products based on past viewing history”, taught by Buzzell. One would be motivated to do this in order to outputting the highly-personalized and interactive recommendations; and deliver potential revenue-generating content to the entertainment platform in a way that is highly personalized to the user {Buzzel: At least paras 0002 in context with para 0004}.
29. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caidar et al; (US 2021/0065246 A1), in view of Alford et al; (US 2024/0127280 A1), and further in view of Loyd et al; (US 2016/0328775 A1):
30. Claim 13: The combination of Caidar and Alford teaches the claimed invention as in claim 8. The combination further teaches: the transaction related to the product is completed after the user viewing the video {Caidar: At least paras 0036-0050 in context with para 0018}.
However, the combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “generating and displaying a secondary, longer video about the product or a related product once transaction related to the product is completed.”
Lloyd teaches a general concept of generating and displaying a longer video about a product or a related product once the transaction related to the product is completed (e.g., post-purchased) {At least para 0066, see service provider 130 may generate a set of rich materials (including inter alia video…..) that support inter alia the use, repair, upgrade or enhancement, etc. of, e.g., product 150. Such rich material may leverage, incorporate, etc., information on among other things third party parts, products, services, etc. In other words, service provider 130 may be configured to gather, synthesize, organize, and present materials that would be of interest to a purchaser of product 150, at the time of purchase (e.g., within hours or days), soon after purchase (e.g., within days or weeks) or well-after purchase (e.g., days, weeks or years)}. The Examiner interprets that Lloyd’s rich materials including e.g., video that support inter alia the use, repair, upgrade or enhancement for product after purchase should has been longer than the advertisement video in Caidar (main reference, at least para 0018 in context with para 0008, video clip) about the advertised product that presents to the user before purchase.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “retrieving, by a central server, a product-specific short video stored in a data storage module and streaming the video at the mobile device; and the transaction related to the product is completed after the user viewing the video ”of the combination of Caidar and Alford especially Caidar to include “generating and displaying a secondary, longer video about the product or a related product once transaction related to the product is completed.”, taught by Lloyd. One would be motivated to do this in order to enhance the post-purchases experiences and increase the purchaser’s satisfaction since for example, sharing tips, tricks, and different ways to use the product provides continued value to the customer after they have already paid.
31. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caidar et al; (US 2021/0065246 A1), in view of Liu et al; (US 2023/0376920 A1), in view of Alford et al; (US 2024/0127280 A1); and further in view of Buzzell et al; (US 2023/0377023 A1):
32. Independent claim 15: Caidar teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to perform a method for managing content delivery related to a product, the method comprising:
receiving, from a mobile device (para 0008, fig. 1 paras 0030-0031), a scan of a machine-readable code associated with a product (limitation 1) {At least para 0018 in context with paras 0008, 0012, fig. 1 paras 0030-0031};
retrieving, by a central server, product-specific video content stored in a data storage module, and streaming the video content to the mobile device (paras 0002 in context with paras 0013, 0033, 0038, fig. 1) (limitation 2) {At least para 0018 in context with Abstract, paras 0002, 0008, 0012, 0014, 0021, fig. 1: especially para 0038-0039, 0045};
recording user interactions with the video content in a consumer profile (para 0056-0050) stored in the data storage module (limitation 5) {At least paras 0036-0050};
However, Caidar does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “verifying user eligibility through an age verification module before streaming the video content “ (limitation 3).
Liu teaches a general concept of verifying user eligibility through an age verification module before content delivery {At least paras 0040-0041}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “retrieving, by a central server, product-specific video content stored in a data storage module, and streaming the video content to the mobile device” of Caidar to include “verifying user eligibility through an age verification