DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ariyibi (US 2010/0023401 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Ariyibi discloses a system for routing data upon a proximity condition, the system comprising:
a computing system comprising at least one processor and at least one of a memory device and a non-transitory storage device, wherein said at least processor executes computer- readable instructions; a network connection for operatively connecting devices to the computing system; a proximity sensing terminal sending an embedded-data signal (para. 17, once the customer’s present is detected…a store clerk thus may be alerted to a customer’s entering the store by receiving a message on a handheld device…para. 20, para. 25) to the computing system upon sensing a registration device, the signal conveying identifying data (an RFID sensor detects the customer’s present upon entering the store, a detection signal is automatically sent to the portal 252, the portal automatically generates email, SMS message); and a primary agent device in wireless communication with computing system via the network connection (para. 6), wherein, upon execution of the computer-readable instructions, the computing system performs steps comprising:
receiving the embedded-data signal (para. 17, once the customer’s present is detected by the store sensors…a store clerk thus may be alerted to a customer’s entering the store by receiving a message on a handheld device…para. 20, para. 25);
and routing data to the primary agent device by at least:
identifying a stored user-entity profile associated with the identifying data, the stored user entity profile containing user entity specific data (para. 17, para. 25, the clerk …be alerted by customer’s entering the store by receiving a message…the clerk to greet the customer by her name, the customers visit is tracked and recorded, the online database retrieve customer information…para. 25);
and sending a portion of the user-specific data to the primary agent device, wherein the primary agent device displays content at least representative of the portion of the user-specific data (para. 17, para. 25, based on this information the customer 21 is provided with a personalized shopping experience, the store clerk is provided with a handheld device to retrieve current inventory).
Regarding claim 2, Ariyibi discloses wherein, upon execution of the computer-readable instructions, the computing system performs steps comprising, for each specific user entity of multiple user entities, storing access event records in a user-entity profile associated with the specific user entity, each of the access event records corresponding to access of content by a user device associated with the specific user entity (para. 25, to retrieve customer preference, personalized shopping experience, and style suggestion).
Regarding claim 7, Ariyibi discloses wherein upon displaying the content at least representative of the portion of the user-specific data, and receiving agent input by primary agent device, the computing system activates a secure device (Ariyibi, para. 17, para. 25).
Regarding claim 8, Ariyibi discloses, wherein, upon identifying a record of a timed process associated with the stored user entity profile, the computing system activates a secure device (Ariyib, para. 25, an email/sms message would indicate the time information to be identify).
Regarding claim 11, Ariyibi discloses wherein the secure device comprises a physical access controller (Fig. 2, el. 22).
Regarding claim 12, Ariyibi discloses wherein the primary agent device displays at least one of an identification of the secure device and a location of the secure device (abstract, the identifying token).
Regarding claim 13, Ariyibi discloses wherein the proximity sensing terminal comprises at least one of a near- field communication (NFC) reader and a radio-frequency identification (RFID) reader (Ariyibi para. 25, an RFID sensor, el. 33).
Regarding claim 14, Ariyibi discloses wherein the registration device comprises a field-enabled device (Fig. 4, el. 25).
Regarding claim 15, Ariyibi discloses wherein the registration device comprises a mobile device including a processor, a memory device, a non-transitory storage device, a display, and an antenna (Fig. 4, el. 25, para. 20, para. 25).
Regarding claim 16, Ariyibi discloses wherein the registration device comprises at least one of: a card comprising an embedded integrated circuit and an antenna; and a fob comprising an integrated circuit and an antenna (para. 25, para. 20).
Regarding claim 17, Ariyibi discloses wherein the primary agent device comprises a mobile device including a processor, a memory device, a non-transitory storage device, a display, and an antenna (para. 25, a PDA).
Regarding claim 19, Ariyibi discloses a method for a computing system to conducting a video conference system across a network connection, the computing system comprising at least one processor and at least one of a memory device and a non-transitory storage device, the network connection operatively connecting devices to the computing system, wherein, upon execution of the computer-readable instructions, the computing system performs steps comprising:
receiving an embedded-data signal from a first proximity sensing terminal, the signal conveying identifying data (para. 17, once the customer’s present is detected…a store clerk thus may be alerted to a customer’s entering the store by receiving a message on a handheld device…para. 20, para. 25);
identifying a stored user entity-profile associated with the identifying data, the stored user entity profile containing user entity specific data (para. 17, para. 25, the clerk …be alerted by customer’s entering the store by receiving a message…the clerk to greet the customer by her name, the customers visit is tracked and recorded, the online database retrieve customer information…para. 25);
and sending a portion of the user-specific data to a primary agent device, wherein the primary agent device displays content at least representative of the portion of the user-specific data (para. 17, para. 25, based on this information the customer 21 is provided with a personalized shopping experience, the store clerk is provided with a handheld device to retrieve current inventory).
Regarding claim 20, the instant claim is met the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariyibi in view of Brill et al. (US 2014/0123228 A1, herein after refers as Brill).
Regarding claim 3, Ariyibi discloses all limitation of claim1,
Ariyibi does not explicitly disclose wherein the portion of the user-specific data sent to the primary agent device comprises at least one access event record indicating a terminated access;
Brill teaches wherein the portion of the user-specific data sent to the primary agent device comprises at least one access event record indicating a terminated access (para. 19, Fig. 1B);
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in arts before the invention to modify Ariyibi to include Brill in order to authenticate user’s identity.
Regarding claim 4, Ariyibi in view of Brill discloses wherein the at least one access event record indicating a terminated access indicates an equipment failure (Brill, para. 19, Fig. 1B, Device error/failure, 1C).
Regarding claim 5, Ariyibi in view of Brill discloses wherein the equipment failure comprises at least one of an ATM function failure, a failure at least in part of the network connection, and a virtual agent failure (Brill, para. 16, Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 6, Ariyibi in view of Brill discloses wherein the at least one access event record indicating a terminated access indicates at least one of a failed account login, an account lock, an attempted fraudulent access, and a refused renumeration (para. 19).
Regarding claim 9, Ariyibi discloses all limitation of claim1,
Ariyibi does not explicitly disclose wherein the secure device comprises a printer and activating the secure device comprises authorizing printing;
Brill teaches wherein the secure device comprises a printer and activating the secure device comprises authorizing printing (para. 19, Fig. 1B);
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in arts before the invention to modify Ariyibi to include Brill in order to allow a system to print out a receipt for a user to keep a record of the purchase.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariyibi in view of Sharp (US 2016/0012465 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ariyibi discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Ariyibi does not explicitly disclose wherein the secure device comprises a dispenser and activating the secure device comprises authorizing dispensing an item;
Sharp teaches wherein the secure device comprises a dispenser and activating the secure device comprises authorizing dispensing an item (para. 7, para. 16, a self-dispensing machine kiosk);
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in arts before the invention to modify Ariyibi to include Brill in order to allow a system to a save a resource.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, the art of record either alone or in combination fails to particular disclose or suggest the claim limitation of “wherein, upon execution of the computer-readable instructions, the computing system performs steps comprising, for each specific user entity of multiple user entities: receiving input event signals and storing corresponding timestamped input event records in a user-entity profile associated with the specific user entity, each of the timestamped input event records representing a respective quantized input event; incrementing, for at least some of the timestamped input event records, one or more quantized resource of the specific user entity by a respective input quantity; receiving output event signals and storing corresponding timestamped output event records in a user-entity profile associated with the specific user entity, each of the timestamped output event records representing a respective quantized output event; and decrementing, for at least some of the timestamped output event records, a respective output quantity from the one or more quantized resource of the specific user entity.”
As to the art of record, Ariyibi reference the concept of a system to detect the identifying token by a RFID sensor when carries by the customer into a retail space to detect the user’s shopping profile. However, Ariyibi reference does not teach with respect to the entire or combination claim limitation stated as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAI Y CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5679. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/CAI Y CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights