DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
The current application is a continuation of 17/656,851, which is a continuation-in-part of application 17/644,034 filed 12/13/2021, and claiming US priority all the way back to 9/5/2012 and foreign priority all the way back to 9/6/2011. However, some claims of the current application contain elements that were introduced in the current application and not originally disclosed in the parent application. As one such example, there is no disclosure of the claimed "switchers" of claim 9 in the parent applications. Therefore, since Applicant did not have knowledge of the invention as currently claimed at the time of the 12/13/2021, 9/5/2012, or 9/6/2011 filings, such claims (and all depending from them) do not claim the benefit of those filing dates. The first recitation of the claimed subject matter in question is 3/28/2022, the date of filing of the 17/656,851 application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, in part, detecting [entities] in communication; generating a storyboard that allows for dynamic storylines that are adapted in real time based on the detected [entities] and based on detection of a condition; generating data items corresponding to the storyboard and storing the data items, the data items defining a synchronized set of actions to be performed based on detected conditions, at least a portion of the data items including time synchronization information for the set of actions; receive information of a detected condition that triggers an action of the storyboard; determining a set of actions from a storyline of the storyboard, wherein the set of actions are based on the detected condition; and communicating data items related to the detected condition and defining the determined set of actions.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites generating data items and communicating those data items based on detected conditions, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically commercial interactions including advertising or marketing activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of presentation devices (claim 1, mobile devices), presentation system (claim 1, general purpose computer), database (claim 1, mere data storage), one or more computer hardware processors (claim 1, general purpose computer), non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 1, mere data storage). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of detecting, generating, receiving, determining, and communicating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using presentation devices (claim 1, mobile devices), presentation system (claim 1, general purpose computer), database (claim 1, mere data storage), one or more computer hardware processors (claim 1, general purpose computer), non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 1, mere data storage) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Paragraphs 0236, 0241); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 2-20 appear to merely limit specifics of the detected condition, groups of presentation devices, a common unique group identifier, types of presentation devices, receiving data information from an external source, specifics of the data information, activating of switchers based on event information, sending activation signals between switchers, specifics of the activation triggers, determining that activation parameters have been met, non-simultaneous transmission of signals, sending of signals in a predetermined order, specifics of product packaging, receiving information from an event computer system, and specifics of event information, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The presentation devices (claim 1, mobile devices), presentation system (claim 1, general purpose computer), database (claim 1, mere data storage), one or more computer hardware processors (claim 1, general purpose computer), non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 1, mere data storage) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of detecting, generating, receiving, determining, and communicating, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the presentation devices (claim 1, mobile devices), presentation system (claim 1, general purpose computer), database (claim 1, mere data storage), one or more computer hardware processors (claim 1, general purpose computer), non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 1, mere data storage) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102b as being anticipated by Wilson U.S. Patent No. 7,697,925). Wilson teaches a system and method of implementing a storyboard presentation that includes all of the limitations recited in the above claims.
Regarding claim 1, Wilson teaches detecting presentation devices in communication with the storyboard system (Column 6 Lines 13-43, user connects and signs up for the light show services); generating by the storyboard system a storyboard that allows for dynamic storylines that are adapted in real time based on the detected presentation devices and based on detection of a condition (Column 4 Line 34 – Column 6 Line 3, detected condition is at least a trigger or a geographic location, light show event sequence is a “storyboard”, present and connected devices take part); generating data items corresponding to the storyboard and storing the data items in a database of the storyboard system, the data items defining a synchronized set of actions to be performed on the presentation devices based on detected conditions, at least a portion of the data items including time synchronization information for the set of actions (Column 4 Line 34 – Column 6 Line 3, tables show time-synchronization, Column 6 Lines 28-43, detected condition is at least a trigger or a geographic location); receive information at the storyboard system of a detected condition that triggers an action of the storyboard (Column 3 Line 63 – Column 4 Line 33, receive information at server from user device indicating geographic condition); determining a set of actions from a storyline of the storyboard, wherein the set of actions are based on the detected condition (Table at Column 4 Lines 45-58, actions are based on detected geographic condition); and communicating data items related to the detected condition and defining the determined set of actions from the database of the storyboard system to the presentation devices (Column 2 Lines 35-49, control files are downloaded), wherein the method is performed by one or more computer hardware processors configured to execute computer-executable instructions on one or more non-transitory computer storage mediums (Column 2 Lines 50-52, computer platform represents “one or more computer hardware processors configured to execute computer-executable instructions on one or more non-transitory computer storage mediums”).
Regarding claim 2, Wilson teaches the detected condition is a geographic location (Column 4 Line 34 – Column 6 Line 3).
Regarding claim 3, Wilson teaches the presentation devices comprises one or more groups of presentation devices (Table at Column 5 Lines 23-36).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson teaches each group of presentation devices has a common unique group identifier (Table at Column 5 Lines 23-36).
Regarding claim 5, Wilson teaches the presentation devices include one or more of a television, radio, personal computer, video wall, smartphone, tablet computer, a billboard, wall display, an electronic display device, a mechanical robotic or display device, or product packaging (Column 6 Lines 13-43).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilson U.S. Patent No. 7,697,925) in view of Biere (U.S. Patent No. 8,626,586).
Regarding claims 6-8, Wilson does not appear to specify receiving data information from an external source, wherein generating data items comprising generating data items using the data information, wherein the data information includes video data or “real-time” video data. However, Biere teaches receiving data information from an external source, wherein generating data items comprising generating data items using the data information, wherein the data information includes video data or “real-time” video data (Column 6 Line 57 – Column 7 Line 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Wilson and Biere since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 9-14 and 18-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilson U.S. Patent No. 7,697,925) in view of Snyder (U.S. Pub No. 2015/0012308).
Regarding claim 9, Wilson does not appear to specify activating a first switcher in communication with the storyboard system; receiving, at a first switcher, event information indicative of the occurrence of an action of a particular event; determining if the event information meets triggering criteria for a trigger of the first switcher; and in response to the event information meeting triggering criteria for a trigger of the first switcher, activating the trigger of the first switcher that meets the triggering criteria, wherein activating the trigger of the first switcher includes sending, by the first switcher, a state of desired effect (SDES) activation signal to a first set of presentation devices identified by the trigger identification code of the activated trigger, and providing by the first set of presentation devices a SDES based on the SDES activation signal. However, Snyder teaches activating a first switcher in communication with the storyboard system (Paragraph 0095, start-up); receiving, at a first switcher, event information indicative of the occurrence of an action of a particular event (Paragraph 0062, receipt of location information is an action of a particular event); determining if the event information meets triggering criteria for a trigger of the first switcher; and in response to the event information meeting triggering criteria for a trigger of the first switcher (Paragraph 0062, specific location information for specific commands), activating the trigger of the first switcher that meets the triggering criteria (Paragraph 0064), wherein activating the trigger of the first switcher includes sending, by the first switcher, a state of desired effect (SDES) activation signal to a first set of presentation devices identified by the trigger identification code of the activated trigger and providing by the first set of presentation devices a SDES based on the SDES activation signal (Paragraphs 0064, 0128, trigger identification code is a specific location). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Wilson and Snyder since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Wilson teaches sending, by the first switcher, a trigger activation signal to a second switcher identified by the trigger identification code, and activating a trigger of the second switcher if the activation parameters of the second switcher are met (Column 5 Lines 38-63).
Regarding claim 11, Wilson teaches activating the trigger of the second switcher includes sending an SDES activation signal to a second set of presentation devices or sending a trigger activation signal to a third switcher (Column 5 Lines 38-63).
Regarding claim 12, Wilson does not appear to specify activating the first switcher comprises determining that the activation parameters of the first switcher have been meet. However, Snyder teaches activating the first switcher comprises determining that the activation parameters of the first switcher have been meet (Paragraph 0095). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Wilson and Snyder since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Wilson does not appear to specify non-simultaneously providing the SDES activation signal to the first set of presentation devices. However, Snyder teaches non-simultaneously providing the SDES activation signal to the first set of presentation devices (Paragraph 0067, "mobile devices may receive the respective sets of instructions during at the venue during the event, or even in real time", if the presentation is a non-simultaneous presentation the instructions will be received non-simultaneously). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Wilson and Snyder since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Wilson does not appear to specify providing the SDES activation signal to a plurality of presentation devices in a predetermined order. However, Snyder teaches providing the SDES activation signal to a plurality of presentation devices in a predetermined order (Paragraph 0067, "mobile devices may receive the respective sets of instructions during at the venue during the event, or even in real time", if the presentation is an ordered presentation the instructions will be received in a predetermined order). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Wilson and Snyder since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 18-20, Wilson does not appear to specify receiving event information comprises receiving event information from a computer system communicating information relating to an event, wherein the event information comprises information relating to a sporting event, political event, a promotional event, or an environmental event. However, Snyder teaches receiving event information comprises receiving event information from a computer system communicating information relating to an event, wherein the event information comprises information relating to a sporting event, political event, a promotional event, or an environmental event (Paragraph 0060, a sporting event is also promotional). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Wilson and Snyder since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilson U.S. Patent No. 7,697,925) in view of Snyder (U.S. Pub No. 2015/0012308), and further in view of Nowacek (U.S. Pub No. 2010/0161423).
Regarding claims 15-17, Wilson does not appear to specify the first set of presentation devices includes product packaging coupled to a product. However, Nowacek teaches the first set of presentation devices includes product packaging coupled to a product, wherein product packaging houses at least a portion of the product, wherein product packaging comprises material used for holding, and transporting the product (Paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0024). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include any type of audio and visual capable device in the system of Wilson, including product packaging. Since the system of Wilson takes place at a venue during an event, it would help promote sales of concessions that could also be used as synchronized entertainment during the event.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621