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
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 06/20/2025, the following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 19244735.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 06/20/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 19244735 filed 06/20/2025 is a Continuation of 18367283 , filed 09/12/2023, now abandoned; 18367283 is a Continuation of 17037217 , filed 09/29/2020 ,now U.S. Patent # 11756062 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein; 17037217 is a Continuation of 14918251 , filed 10/20/2015 ,now U.S. Patent # 10789603 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein; 14918251 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62066214 , filed 10/20/2014.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/10/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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. The claims fall within statutory class of machine or manufacture; hence, the claims fall under statutory category of Step 1.
Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
A display device for providing consumer feedback, the display device comprising: an enclosure; one or more processors housed within the enclosure; a display screen disposed on the enclosure, the display screen being in communication with the one or more processors; a plurality of physical input buttons disposed on the enclosure adjacent to the display screen, the plurality of input buttons being in communication with the one or more processors; and a memory; wherein the memory contains processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the display device to:display questionnaire data and answer data on the display screen, the questionnaire data and answer data being related to a product in close proximity to the enclosure, and the answer data including a plurality of answer selections to the questionnaire data, the answer data being displayed on the display screen such that one of the plurality of answer selections is displayed adjacent to a corresponding one of the plurality of input buttons;receive a plurality of selected answers from a plurality of users in response to the questionnaire data, each selected answer being selected by each of the plurality of users from the plurality of answer selections via the corresponding one of the plurality of input buttons adjacent to the selected answer;aggregate the received plurality of selected answers from the plurality of users; anddisplay the aggregated received selected answers from the plurality of users on the display screen in response to receiving the selected answer.
[or]
A display device for providing consumer feedback, the display device comprising: an enclosure; one or more processors housed within the enclosure; a display screen disposed on the enclosure, the display screen being in communication with the one or more processors and being touch sensitive; and a memory; wherein the memory contains processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the display device to:display a plurality of input buttons on a portion of the display screen, the input buttons being responsive to one or more touch inputs by a user;display questionnaire data and answer data on the display screen, the questionnaire and answer data being related to a product in close proximity to the enclosure, and the answer data including a plurality of answer selections to the questionnaire data, the answer data being displayed on the display screen such that each one of the plurality of answer selections corresponds to one of the plurality of input buttons;receive a plurality of selected answers from a plurality of users in response to the questionnaire data, each selected answer being selected by each of the plurality of users from the plurality of answer selections via the corresponding one of the plurality of input buttons adjacent to the selected answer;aggregate the received plurality of selected answers from the plurality of users; and display the aggregated received selected answers from the plurality of users on the display screen in response to receiving the selected answer.
The claim(s) recite(s) the following summarization of the abstract idea which includes providing consumer feedback executed by the additional element(s) of non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computer and/or processor. This falls into at least the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mental Processes since the information can be analyzed by an abstract evaluation judgment process. Thus, per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity since the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions).
Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The touch sensitive display, physical input buttons, memory and/or processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic touch sensitive display, physical input buttons, memory and/or processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, display the aggregated received selected answers from the plurality of users by a touch sensitive display, physical input buttons, memory and/or processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B.
Per Step 2B, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: touch sensitive display, physical input buttons, memory and/or processor. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, display the aggregated received selected answers from the plurality of users by a touch sensitive display, physical input buttons, memory and processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶0082 wherein “The portable computing device 101 may have a processor 150 that is physically configured according to computer executable instructions [and it may have a portable power supply 155 such as a battery which may be rechargeable.” Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims).
The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falaki et al. (US 20140223329 A1) hereinafter referred to as Falaki in view of Garel et al. (US 20150025936 A1) hereinafter referred to as Garel.
Falaki teaches:
Claim 21. A display device for providing consumer feedback, the display device comprising:
an enclosure;one or more processors housed within the enclosure (¶0162 FIG. 5 illustrates a diagram of an embodiment of the user-initiated opinion polling system on a receiver/re-transmitter device. In another embodiment, a receiver/re-transmitter device enables the operator of a control device (e.g., an infrared hand-held remote, a PC, a Laptop, a PDA, or a mobile phone running a remote control application) to use the said control device to issue voting commands (e.g., , etc.) as well as other typical control commands such as program selection, channel selection/change/up/down, ON/OFF, etc. to a TV, cable or satellite TV receiver that only has an infrared input interface);
a display screen disposed on the enclosure, the display screen being in communication with the one or more processors (¶0195 FIGS. 7a and 7b illustrate a diagram of an embodiment of the user-initiated opinion polling with a transparent graphic overlay. The user of a personal computer, a laptop or any other device that runs a browser or browser-like software able to access the world wide web, or any localized web-type network, is provided a small transparent desktop browser overlay displaying the buttons: . The said overlay automatically works in conjunction with a web server on the World Wide Web (or the local network). The user can select and the drag and move the overlay to anywhere over an active web page (being browsed) in order to initiate the process of expressing/registering his/her opinion on, or to input textual comments about, the content of the specific location of the active web page on which the overlay is located at the time.);
a plurality of physical input buttons disposed on the enclosure adjacent to the display screen, the plurality of input buttons being in communication with the one or more processors (Abstract A system to conduct a public-initiated opinion poll on a media space or in a consumer space is discussed. Simple activation of software- or hardware-based buttons or otherwise by speaking into or tapping on a device are provided and enables the public to express its likes/dislikes about anything, anyone, anywhere, anytime and merely when he/she decides to do so. Hence, this system replaces the current survey-based paradigm in which the surveyor decides when to ask what, and how from the public. ¶0206 In step 3200, upon detecting a given opinion level button (any of ) pressed by the user, the overlay software performs different tasks depending on whether the pressed button is one of the four graphical like/dislike buttons (i.e., ) or the button "T" indicating the user's desire to input textual opinion or like/dislike comment. The system therefore checks for the button type so that the appropriate action(s) is/are taken depending the button that was pressed. ¶0127 The module is configured to enable the user of the client device to choose when to express his/her opinion, exactly about what subject matter to express his/her opinion on, and then to express his/her opinion level by activating/pressing merely a single opinion level button that has a very specific meaning e.g. BAD, GOOD, EXCELLENT with these simple software--or hardware-based buttons such as For example, any of the four opinion level buttons 208 may be activated.); and
a memory;wherein the memory contains processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the display device to (¶0195 FIGS. 7a and 7b illustrate a diagram of an embodiment of the user-initiated opinion polling with a transparent graphic overlay. The user of a personal computer, a laptop or any other device that runs a browser or browser-like software able to access the world wide web, or any localized web-type network, is provided a small transparent desktop browser overlay displaying the buttons: . The said overlay automatically works in conjunction with a web server on the World Wide Web (or the local network). The user can select and the drag and move the overlay to anywhere over an active web page (being browsed) in order to initiate the process of expressing/registering his/her opinion on, or to input textual comments about, the content of the specific location of the active web page on which the overlay is located at the time):
display questionnaire data and answer data on the display screen, the questionnaire data and answer data being related to a product in close proximity to the enclosure, and the answer data including a plurality of answer selections to the questionnaire data, the answer data being displayed on the display screen such that one of the plurality of answer selections is displayed adjacent to a corresponding one of the plurality of input buttons (¶0177 The determination of the subject matter about which the user is expressing his/her opinion could also be done as a combination of user selected (e.g., by inputting or selecting from a menu of options) information and the system's automatic enhancement of the information (using the GPS, RFD, NFC, etc. data) to figure out the exact subject matter about which opinion(s) is/are being expressed. Using NFC (Near Field Communication) or any scanning technology, the user can choose a subject, or be aided in choosing a subject, also by touching, swiping, or moving his/her device in the proximity of something. The subject may also be chosen by the user speaking it in to a microphone on his device, which can recognize speech and convert it to computer data format. In step 1040: Once the subject matter is chosen and available to the system, the user's pressing of any of the opinion expression/voting buttons (e.g., .) will cause an opinion about the specific item to be sent to a website where it will be further stored, disseminated, statistically analyzed, presented to users through the worldwide web, etc. As an alternative to pressing the iconic button, in some devices and modes the user can tap on the device, or shake the device gently vs. roughly (or anything in between) to express the same meaning of the iconic buttons. In these devices, the software assigns a tap or gentle shake to the button at one end of the opinion spectrum and four or more taps or rough shake to an opinion at the other extreme end of the opinion spectrum, while automatically training itself to assign intermediate number of taps or shakes to the corresponding intermediate opinions);
receive a plurality of selected answers from a plurality of users in response to the questionnaire data, each selected answer being selected by each of the plurality of users from the plurality of answer selections via the corresponding one of the plurality of input buttons adjacent to the selected answer (¶0179 In step 1050: Sending the user opinion information can be done by any device, on or off the Internet, utilizing a command structure of the kind described in section "Device Voting/Voicing Device Communication Format". In step 1060: Once the user opinion expression/vote is sent to the website, the system continues to monitor responses from the www server in form of an "Acknowledge or receipt of valid opinion/vote". Receipt of such acknowledge is not required as the server system may or may not always send such acknowledge responses. If the server does not send an `Acknowledge` message, the opinion expression system will continue to monitor the server initiated communication until such time as either an acknowledge is received or the user initiates another opinion expression process, which will start the whole process from the top again. ¶0120 The client communicates the content entered into the fields of the web page regarding the opinion poll over the network to the server, and a software program resident on the server takes in the details of the opinion poll, and the backend server aggregates an opinion level expressed by activating the opinion level button with all of the cast opinion levels previously submitted by users of different client machines on this opinion poll and feeds this information back to the client to be displayed on a display screen of the client. Any portion of the server implemented in software and any software implemented on the client are both stored on their own non-transitory computer readable medium in an executable format.);
aggregate the received plurality of selected answers from the plurality of users (¶0120 The client communicates the content entered into the fields of the web page regarding the opinion poll over the network to the server, and a software program resident on the server takes in the details of the opinion poll, and the backend server aggregates an opinion level expressed by activating the opinion level button with all of the cast opinion levels previously submitted by users of different client machines on this opinion poll and feeds this information back to the client to be displayed on a display screen of the client. Any portion of the server implemented in software and any software implemented on the client are both stored on their own non-transitory computer readable medium in an executable format. ¶0135 When the user's opinion has been captured by a server applet resident on the server, the server applet sends back an acknowledgement (a sort of feedback, light, message, etc.) to the browser of the client device indicating that the opinion was captured. The server applet sends back an updated chart graph of the opinion poll to be displayed on the display screen of the client device. The updated chart indicates at least a number of times each particular opinion level rating has been cast and what the total aggregate number of opinions cast are. Thus, after the user activates the particular opinion icon, the application on the server sends the tally information from the database to the application resident on the client device to immediately display of the results in easy to understand and compare chart formats (e.g., bar, pie, etc. with simple but powerful data such as the number of times each particular opinion level rating has been cast and what the total aggregate number of opinions cast are, without a complicated listing of user text based comments to filter through. (See FIGS. 2 through 4).); and
display the aggregated received selected answers from the plurality of users on the display screen in response to receiving the selected answer (¶0135 When the user's opinion has been captured by a server applet resident on the server, the server applet sends back an acknowledgement (a sort of feedback, light, message, etc.) to the browser of the client device indicating that the opinion was captured. The server applet sends back an updated chart graph of the opinion poll to be displayed on the display screen of the client device. The updated chart indicates at least a number of times each particular opinion level rating has been cast and what the total aggregate number of opinions cast are. Thus, after the user activates the particular opinion icon, the application on the server sends the tally information from the database to the application resident on the client device to immediately display of the results in easy to understand and compare chart formats (e.g., bar, pie, etc. with simple but powerful data such as the number of times each particular opinion level rating has been cast and what the total aggregate number of opinions cast are, without a complicated listing of user text based comments to filter through. (See FIGS. 2 through 4).).
Although not explicitly taught by Falaki, Garel teaches in the analogous art of monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses therof:
the questionnaire data and answer data being related to a product in close proximity to the enclosure (¶0073 The step of analyzing can include determining what product within the retail store the customer is viewing. ¶0108 In addition, the system can utilize an interactive display either built into or attached to a device to deliver a personalized marketing message that is relevant to the customer's behavior. This message can be determined based upon the customer's demographic and sentiment information, the customer's location at the shelf, and his or her duration at the shelf. Additionally, the system logs all activity to optimize and personalize the message. Utilizing machine learning algorithms along with things such as customer reaction, dwell time, location, and interaction with the display--the system can determine the right message to display to the right customer at the right time CL. 22. The system of claim 9, wherein (a) the system comprises a relevant rating engine module; (b) the one or more information monitoring devices are operable to interact with the customer to gather information of the customer's age and gender by interactive questioning.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses therof of Garel with the system for enhancing public opinion gathering and dissemination of Falaki for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Falaki ¶0004 teaches that it is desirable to enhance user's ability to very specifically select a subject;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Falaki Abstract teaches a system to conduct a public-initiated opinion poll on a media space or in a consumer space, and Garel Abstract teaches systems for monitoring and analyzing behavior in various applications; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Falaki at least the above cited paragraphs, and Garel at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses therof of Garel with the system for enhancing public opinion gathering and dissemination of Falaki. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Falaki teaches:
Claim 22. The device of claim 21 further comprising an image sensor disposed on the enclosure, the image sensor being in communication with the one or more processors and configured to capture images of a face of one or more users (¶0130 The module may be scripted to allow the user to decide the subject matter of the opinion poll by two or more of the following 1) the putting in of text or symbols in the subject field 202 either by the user typing in words or accepting the pre-populated suggested words supplied from the server, 2) the user speaking the subject matter of the opinion poll into the microphone of the client device, and the application using a speech to text routine to populate the subject field 202, 3) the user scanning an object to be the subject matter of the opinion poll by swiping the mobile client device against the object and a sensor inside the mobile device using Near Field Communication (NFC) or Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID) technologies recognizes that object and/or reads the object's ID code to populate the subject field 202, 4) the user taking a picture of an object with the phone camera built into the client device and the client application is scripted to pass the image of the object for image recognition by the server and database).
Although not explicitly taught by Falaki, Garel teaches in the analogous art of monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses therof:
image sensor being in communication with the one or more processors and configured to capture images of a face of one or more users (¶0119 Retailers and brands are always trying to determine where customers are looking and what attracts their attention. Today, there are very expensive products that can be installed on shelves to only watch a customer's eyes and determine where they are looking Utilizing the system's built-in camera, the system can use retina tracking to determine what products a customer is looking at on a shelf Part of the face detection algorithm of the demographic intelligence module plots a point on the customer's iris. From this information, the system can determine where the customer is standing and therefore determine the products or information that customer is looking at..).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses therof of Garel with the system for enhancing public opinion gathering and dissemination of Falaki for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Falaki ¶0004 teaches that it is desirable to enhance user's ability to very specifically select a subject;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Falaki Abstract teaches a system to conduct a public-initiated opinion poll on a media space or in a consumer space, and Garel Abstract teaches systems for monitoring and analyzing behavior in various applications; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Falaki at least the above cited paragraphs, and Garel at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses therof of Garel with the system for enhancing public opinion gathering and dissemination of Falaki. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Falaki teaches:
Claim 23. The device of claim 22, wherein the memory further contains processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to: using the image sensor, capture one or more images of a user's face of the plurality of users; based on the captured one or more images of the user's face, determine a user identity of the user using one or more facial analysis algorithms; retrieve, from a database, user information associated with the identified user identity; analyze the user information; based on the analysis of the user information, generate a user-specific message; and display the user-specific message on the display screen (¶0149 The determination of the subject matter about which the user is expressing his/her opinion could also be done as a combination of user selected (e.g., by inputting or selecting from a menu of options information) and the system's automatic enhancement of the information (using the GPS, RFD, NFC, etc. data) to figure out the exact subject matter about which opinion(s) is/are being expressed. Using NFS (Near Field Communication) or any scanning technology, the user can choose a subject, or be aided in choosing a subject, also by touching, swiping, or moving his/her device in the proximity of something. The subject may also be chosen by the user speaking it in to a microphone on his device, which can recognize speech and convert it to computer data format..).
Although not explicitly taught by Falaki, Garel teaches in the analogous art of monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses therof:
using the image sensor, capture one or more images of a user's face of the plurality of users; based on the captured one or more images of the user's face, determine a user identity of the user using one or more facial analysis algorithms; retrieve, from a database, user information associated with the identified user identity; analyze the user information; based on the analysis of the user information, generate a user-specific message; and display the user-specific message on the display screen (¶0119 Retailers and brands are always trying to determine where customers are looking and what attracts their attention. Today, there are very expensive products that can be installed on shelves to only watch a customer's eyes and determine where they are looking Utilizing the system's built-in camera, the system can use retina tracking to determine what products a customer is looking at on a shelf Part of the face detection algorithm of the demographic intelligence module plots a point on the customer's iris. From this information, the system can determine where the customer is standing and therefore determine the products or information that customer is looking at.. ¶0140 When a person (i.e., customer 901) approaches an information monitoring device 902 (such as a display), the system can automatically recognizes demographic and sentiment information of the customer 901, as well as the hashed MAC address of the customer's mobile device 903. This hashed MAC address is tied to all of the customer's interactions with the information monitoring device 902 and the in-store products 904 (such as, washing machines), creating a detailed history from which future purchasing preferences can be determined. Based off of demographic information, previous purchase history, and online and offline browsing history, the present system provides a content rich shopping experience not previously offered CL 15. The system of claim 9, wherein the system is able to recognize repeat customers of the retail store).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses therof of Garel with the system for enhancing public opinion gathering and dissemination of Falaki for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Falaki ¶0004 teaches that it is desirable to enhance user's ability to very specifically select a subject;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Falaki Abstract teaches a system to conduct a public-initiated opinion poll on a media space or in a consumer space, and Garel Abstract teaches systems for monitoring and analyzing behavior in various applications; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Falaki at least the above cited paragraphs, and Garel at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses therof of Garel with the system for enhancing public opinion gathering and dissemination of Falaki. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Falaki teaches:
Claim 24. The device of claim 23, wherein the user-specific message is associated with the product that is located in close proximity to the enclosure (¶0079 If the user selects that the geographic location verification is required before an entry may be added regarding the given subject, the user may be prompted to enter an associated geographic location, the user may be offered to use the present geographic location of the device creating the subject matter, or may obtain the geographic information from publicly available sources. Accordingly, the user may enter the information directly, or the system may obtain the information from the device or other sources, either automatically or once prompted by the user).
Falaki teaches:
Claim 25. The device of claim 23, wherein the user-specific message is a pricing offer for a product (¶0134 Referring to FIG. 2, the server returns the existing opinion polls in a list presented by the application for the user to select from if they choose, and when an existing poll is selected by the client device, the server returns the existing opinion poll and its statistics appear in the form of a chart (bar, graph, etc.) If there are more subjects which names partially match the user selection (e.g., "Starbucks Latte Taste", Starbucks Latte Price", etc.), then user will get a list of all options, which he can choose from or add to (e.g., "Starbucks Latte Calorie Content", or "Starbucks Latte Taste During Christmas", etc.).).
Falaki teaches:
Claim 26. The device of claim 23, wherein the user-specific message is a recommendation for a product (¶0137 the system provides users, active or passive, a variety of useful tools such as a "Top Ten" lists of most expressed opinions, best of in that category, worst of in that category, coupons, topic options, etc., all by category as well as based on automatic category selection which itself is based on the user's automatically sensed data (e.g., location, previous opinions expressed, etc.). The business partners can influence the data passed to the user by the system to allow a highly focused customer reach for that business partner based on the user of the client device likes/dislikes, location, and demographics collected at the instant of customer engagement with a product or service).
Falaki teaches:
Claim 27. The device of claim 23, wherein the image sensor is a camera (¶0130 The module may be scripted to allow the user to decide the subject matter of the opinion poll by two or more of the following 1) the putting in of text or symbols in the subject field 202 either by the user typing in words or accepting the pre-populated suggested words supplied from the server, 2) the user speaking the subject matter of the opinion poll into the microphone of the client device, and the application using a speech to text routine to populate the subject field 202, 3) the user scanning an object to be the subject matter of the opinion poll by swiping the mobile client device against the object and a sensor inside the mobile device using Near Field Communication (NFC) or Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID) technologies recognizes that object and/or reads the object's ID code to populate the subject field 202, 4) the user taking a picture of an object with the phone camera built into the client device and the client application is scripted to pass the image of the object for image recognition by the server and database).
Although not explicitly taught by Falaki, Garel teaches in the analogous art of monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses therof:
wherein the image sensor is a camera (¶0033 The system can include a relevant rating engine module. The one or more information monitoring devices can be operable to interact with the customer to gather information of the customer's age and gender by interactive questioning. The information monitoring devices can be selected from the group consisting of computing devices, user input and output devices, displays, POS devices, cameras, sensors; WIFI devices; in-store customer devices; output devices; system for communicating to user devices, and kiosks ¶0140 When a person (i.e., customer 901) approaches an information monitoring device 902 (such as a display), the system can automatically recognizes demographic and sentiment information of the customer 901, as well as the hashed MAC address of the customer's mobile device 903. This hashed MAC address is tied to all of the customer's interactions with the information monitoring device 902 and the in-store products 904 (such as, washing machines), creating a detailed history from which future purchasing preferences can be determined. Based off of demographic information, previous purchase history, and online and offline browsing history, the present system provides a content rich shopping experience not previously offered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses therof of Garel with the system for enhancing public opinion gathering and dissemination of Falaki for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Falaki ¶0004 teaches that it is desirable to enhance user's ability to very specifically select a subject;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Falaki Abstract teaches a system to conduct a public-initiated opinion poll on a media space or in a consumer space, and Garel Abstract teaches systems for monitoring and analyzing behavior in various applications; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Falaki at least the above cited paragraphs, and Garel at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the monitoring and analyzing behavior and uses therof of Garel with the system for enhancing public opinion gathering and dissemination of Falaki. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Falaki teaches:
Claim 28. The device of claim 23, wherein the user information includes at least one of user past purchases, user buying habits, or user responses to previous offers (¶0156 The user interface of the website presents screens to a browser of a client machine to allow a user to Create/Manage/View a voting profile/history, which linkable to, and share-able with, a social network profile page on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc. The user interface of the website allows a user to have real-time viewing of friend's votes, voting/viewing habit/profile, etc. A tracking routine resident for the website sends automated programmable alert message transmission (e-mail, text, etc.) to self or `friends` and `followers`, e.g. letting them know about the poll/opinion and giving them the opportunity to express their vote. The tracking routine sends the message to friends, and/or the followers, if the user likes a particular program, or program segment, beyond a certain previously defined likeability threshold. The tracking routine may send e-mail messages to the broadcasters, etc. about programs or program segments).
Falaki teaches:
Claim 29. The device of claim 21, wherein the memory further contains instructions to select an image for the display screen to display based on the aggregated received distinct selected answers (¶0127 FIG. 2 illustrates a diagram of an embodiment of an opinion poll presented by a module to a user of a client device. A module, such as a client application on the mobile client device or server applet resident on the server, may be configured to present a template 200 for the opinion poll to allow greater specificity and user customizing of the opinion poll to the user of the client device initiating this opinion poll. A user interface of the module presents a subject field 202 on a display screen of the client device. The server may be configured to recognize content in the subject field 202 as choosing and setting the subject matter of the opinion poll. The content of the subject field 202 is solely initiated and decided by the user and not pre-selected by a third party and then presented to the user of the client device to give their opinion about that pre-selected subject matter of the opinion poll. The user interface and subject field 202 are configured to enable the user of the client device to select an overall subject matter and even specific features about that subject matter, which the user wishes to create the opinion poll on. The module is configured to enable the user of the client device to choose when to express his/her opinion, exactly about what subject matter to express his/her opinion on, and then to express his/her opinion level by activating/pressing merely a single opinion level button that has a very specific meaning).
Falaki teaches:
Claim 30. The device of claim 29, wherein the image is selected for display based on a ranking derived from the aggregated received distinct selected answers (¶0007 The client device communicates the content entered into the subject field of the user interface to set the name and subject matter of the opinion poll over the network to the server potentially located on the World Wide Web. A software program resident on the server takes in the details of the opinion poll. The backend server aggregates the opinion level expressed by activating/pressing the opinion level button with all of the cast opinion levels previously submitted by users of different client machines on this opinion poll and feeds this information back to the client device to be displayed on a display screen of the client device as well as feeds this information back to providers/paying customers.).
As per claims 31-40, the device tracks the device of claims 21-30, respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 21-30 are applied to claims 31-40, respectively. Claim 31 has the additional limitation as follows, however:
display a plurality of input buttons on a portion of the display screen, the input buttons being responsive to one or more touch inputs by a user (¶0128 the module might present the Top Ten opinions for that day to any user viewing the site and increase the interest factor based on the particular user's location, current time, and previous subject matter or opinion levels expressed. Note the search field and subject matter field 202 may be the same field but different actions occur based on subsequent actions. For example, when the search field icon is activated/clicked, for example by a mouse or finger tap on a touch screen, then the server retrieves similar opinion surveys. However, when an opinion level icon 208 is activated then the client application sends the content in the subject field 202 along with all of the other associated data to the server for tallying. ¶0196 In step 3010, the user has access has to (or similar) buttons, that are provided on a transparent software overlay, on his/her computer "desktop", or other device on which he can browse, while browsing the Internet or an Intranet. The user also has an opinion about a web page or a specific content of a given web page (e.g., a text, a picture, video clip, a diagram, etc.) he/she is browsing. The transparent overlay software, which may be running in the background, always calculates, and therefore "knows", the position on the user's computer or device "desktop" it is, and was last, located. In step 3020, the user checks if the transparent overlay showing the opinion level buttons "" is located exactly on the location of the content of his/her interest on the active web page being browsed.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160117699 A1
TANABE; Gakuji
QUESTIONNAIRE SYSTEM, QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE DEVICE, QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE METHOD, AND QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE PROGRAM
WO 2014190351 A1
GOLD Z A et al.
Computer-implemented method for e.g. collecting real-time public opinion data from peer-to-peer anonymous sources in non-deterministic model in real-time feeding system, involves displaying real-time feed of public opinion poll results
US 20130005443 A1
KOSTA; JAMES PETER et al.
AUTOMATED FACIAL DETECTION AND EYE TRACKING TECHNIQUES IMPLEMENTED IN COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMER ENVIRONMENTS
US 20120290442 A1
Starr; Fred et al.
Computer Implemented System, Method and Computer Program Product for Identifying Consumer Design Categories
US 20100145765 A1
Kantarek; Jeffrey
Methods and Systems for Conducting Research on an Airplane
US 20100004977 A1
Marci; Carl et al.
Method and System For Measuring User Experience For Interactive Activities
US 20020016746 A1
McHenry, Michael E. et al.
Customized motor oil selection
NPL
Burke, Raymond R.
Retail Shoppability: A Measure of the World's Best Stores
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURTIS GILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3315. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on 5712726787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURTIS GILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights