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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 1 recites the limitation "the distinct data sources". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Also, claim 2 recites “…the activity…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0191229 A1) in view of Kanjilal et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0100332 A1).
As to claim 1, Rodgers shows a method (Fig. 3 and paras. 76 – 97) of distributing different versions of an interactive digital event program for a particular event (i.e. menu during a visit to a restaurant, Fig. 2 and paras. 57 and 74) to user devices (i.e. smartphone, for example, Fig. 2 and para. 74) comprising: a. associating dynamic content elements (i.e. menu items, for example) with a distinct data source (i.e. database 420) to dynamically update content within the dynamic content element while the particular event is in progress (Fig. 4 and para. 101); b. assigning at least two versions of the interactive digital event program to separate groups of tags (i.e. different restaurants, different times of day, specials, etc., Figs. 1 and 2 and paras. 57, 73 and 74), each tag in each separate group having a unique tag identifier (Fig. 1 and para. 73); d. in response to receiving a request for the interactive digital event program from the user device that has scanned a particular tag (Fig. 3 and paras. 80 and 81), determining to which group the particular tag belongs based on the unique tag identifier for the particular tag (Figs. 1 – 3 and paras. 73, 74, 80 and 83); e. sending the version of the interactive digital event program assigned to the group of tags in which the particular tag belongs to the user device that sent the request (i.e. updating menu items, paras. 57 and 101); and f. causing the distinct data source to populate the associated dynamic content elements in the template for the sent version of the interactive digital event program (Figs. 2 and 3 and paras. 85 and 101), the content of least one of the associated dynamic content elements to be updated while the event is in progress (i.e. during breakfast at a particular restaurant, for example (Figs. 2 and 3 and paras. 85 and 101) and in response to a predefined trigger that has occurred in the event (i.e. a special/a particular time of day, for example, Figs. 2 and 3 and paras. 85 and 101).
Rodgers does not show designing a template for each of at least two versions of an interactive digital event program by dragging and dropping a plurality of dynamic content elements into each template to complete a desired layout.
Kanjilal shows designing a template for each of at least two versions of an interactive digital event program (Fig. 2 and paras. 36 and 48 – 51) by dragging and dropping a plurality of dynamic content elements into each template to complete a desired layout (para. 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Rodgers with those of Kanjilal because designing the system in this way allows the device to exhibit enhanced ease of use.
As to claim 3, Rodgers does not show that the database stores a plurality of identifiable images and the server selects an identifiable image to display in association with the at least one dynamic content element.
Kanjilal shows that the system stores a plurality of identifiable images and the server selects an identifiable image to display in association with the at least one dynamic content element (para. 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Rodgers with those of Kanjilal because designing the system in this way allows the device to exhibit enhanced ease of use.
As to claim 5, Rodgers shows a system (Fig. 4 and para. 99) for providing different versions of an interactive digital event program for a particular event to a particular user device (i.e. menu during a visit to a restaurant, Fig. 2 and paras. 57 and 74) comprising: a. a plurality of tags, each tag in the plurality having a machine-readable code and a unique tag identifier (Fig. 1 and para. 73); b. a server having a computer processor and computer memory (inherently the case for any server, para. 22); c. a database 420 operatively connected to the server (Fig. 4 and para. 101), the database including information relating to each tag in the plurality of tags (i.e. menu data for respective restaurants, for example, para. 101), the information relating to each tag including: i. the unique tag identifier (i.e. table number, for example, Fig. 1 and para. 56); ii. a group identifier to identify a group to which the tag belongs (i.e. restaurant, for example, Fig. 1 and para. 56); and d. wherein the computer memory of the server stores executable code which when executed enables the server to perform a process (Fig. 4 and paras. 99, 104 and 107) comprising: i. in response to receiving a request from a user device that has scanned a tag, using the unique tag identifier from the scanned tag to identify the group to which the scanned tag belongs (i.e. identifying a restaurant, for example, Figs. 1 – 3 and paras. 56, 57, 73, 74, 80 and 83); ii. sending the populated interactive digital event program to the user device that sent the request (Figs. 2 and 3 and paras. 85 and 101); and iii. updating the content of at least one dynamic content element in response to detecting a predefined trigger based on activity within the event that optionally occurred during the event (i.e. a special/a particular time of day, for example, Figs. 2 and 3 and paras. 85 and 101).
Rodgers does not show the method of providing a template for the different versions of the interactive digital event program to be distributed to the group in which the tag belongs and the method of populating the template for the different versions of the interactive digital event program to be distributed to the group in which the tag belongs with one or more dynamic content elements.
Kanjilal shows the method of providing a template for the different versions of a interactive digital event program to be distributed to a group (Fig. 2 and paras. 36 and 48 – 51) and the method of populating the template for the different versions of the interactive digital event program with one or more dynamic content elements (Fig. 2 and paras. 36 and 48 – 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Rodgers with those of Kanjilal because designing the system in this way allows the device to exhibit enhanced ease of use.
As to claim 7, Rodgers shows that the interactive digital event program continues to be updated after the event ends (presumably the menu can be changed at any time, Fig. 4 and para. 101).
As to claim 8, Rodgers does not show that the database stores a plurality of identifiable images and the server selects an identifiable image to display in association with the at least one dynamic content element.
Kanjilal shows that the system stores a plurality of identifiable images and the server selects an identifiable image to display in association with the at least one dynamic content element (para. 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Rodgers with those of Kanjilal because designing the system in this way allows the device to exhibit enhanced ease of use.
As to claim 11, Rodgers shows a geolocation determination wherein a location of the user device is defined within a rule within a tag group (para. 113) to alter the interactive digital event program directed to said user device (paras. 113 – 115).
As to claim 14, Rodgers shows that the tag grouping defines a version of the interactive digital event program that is displayed to said user device (i.e. an appropriate menu, Fig. 2 and para. 74).
As to claim 17, Rodgers shows that the dynamic content element is an advertisement (i.e. a special, for example, para. 57).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0191229 A1) in view of Kanjilal et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0100332 A1) and Thukral (US Pub. No. 2015/0149307 A1).
As to claim 12, Rodgers as modified above does not show that a venue is selected from the group consisting of: a school, a cultural event location, a zoo, a music venue, and combinations thereof.
Thukral shows that a venue is a music venue (para. 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Rodgers with those of Kanjilal because designing the system in this way allows the device to exhibit enhanced flexibility of use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 are 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.
Specifically, claim 6 recites that “… the predefined trigger is a pause in the activity and updating the content of at least one dynamic content element includes pushing updated content from a third party data source in response to detecting a pause in the activity.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Also, claim 4 recites that “… the user device comprises a unique ID wherein the unique ID defines an entry within a database and wherein the entry comprises information regarding actions of the unique ID; aggregating the data regarding the unique ID from said database; and creating a tag grouping based upon the aggregated data on the unique ID and modifying the dynamic content element on said interactive digital event program.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 18 recites similar subject matter as that of claim 4, and therefore is allowable for the reasons above.
Also, claim 9 recites that “… the at least one dynamic content element defines an augmented reality video.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Also, claim 10 recites that “… the machine-readable code is located within a video stream, wherein the unique tag identifier is utilized to determine which interactive digital event program to display to said user device.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Also, claim 13 recites that “… the dynamic content element is connected to a third party API and wherein the third party API disseminates the dynamic content element upon the occurrence of a trigger.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Also, claim 15 recites “… a camera defined on the user device captures video, wherein the captured video is uploaded into the interactive digital event program and the captured video is released as the dynamic content element.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Also, claim 16 recites that “ …the dynamic content element displays a portion of video, said portion of video being a replay, a highlight, or augmented reality.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Also, claim 19 recites that “ … the tag grouping is defined within a section of a venue and wherein the tag grouping is awarded a prize which is pushed into the user device within the dynamic content element within the interactive digital event program.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Also, claim 20 recites that “…the dynamic content element is related to fantasy sports or wagering.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627