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 Interpretation
Claim terms – the following claim terms have required interpretation based on the applicant’s disclosure:
Management interface: graphical user interface (The applicant’s specification dos not mention the term “management interface”, the only interface in the applicant’s disclosure which is caused to be displayed in response to detecting a scan of a coded image and also comprises a presentation of content items, and user interface elements enabling modification of content accessibility is a graphical user interface in paragraph 71 of the applicant’s specification, wherein said graphical user interface is the one depicted in figure 7b.)
Scope of the claims: Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite a system, a method, and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising:
causing display of a management interface at a client device in response to detecting interaction with the coded image, the management interface comprising: a presentation of content items; user interface elements enabling modification of content accessibility; receiving user input via the management interface to control availability of content; and modifying access to content based on the user input.
The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of this causing step is transmitting, to the client device and in response to detecting interaction with the coded image, a request to display a management interface stored on said client device, wherein the management interface comprises: a presentation of content items; user interface elements enabling modification of content accessibility; receiving user input via the management interface to control availability of content; and modifying access to content based on the user input. As such, said management interface and its functions are outside of the scope of the claimed system, method, and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium. As per MPEP 2111.04, claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In the instant case, the client device and management interface are separate and distinct device from the device performing the claimed receiving, generating, associating and transmitting (i.e., causing) steps. Since, transmitting a request for an action to occur on another device cannot be said to guarantee that the device receiving the request will actually perform the request action, the claim limitations ascribed to the client device and its management interface can only be considered as a suggestion that the steps performed by the client device and its management interface occur. Therefore, the limitations and functions ascribed to the management interface and its functions, as well as, the client device and its functions are given little is any patentable weight.
The limitations in dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 which further limit the client device and/or management interface are also given little if any patentable weight because they merely further limit objects outside the scope of the claims from which they depend.
If the applicant intends the client device and/or the management interface to be within the scope of the claimed invention, the examiner suggests amending the claim to positively include the client device and management interface within the scope of the claimed system, method and non-transitory computer readable medium. For example, the system can comprise: an application server, and a client device; and the method claim can recite: receiving, by an application server…; generating, by the application server…; associating, by the application server…; transmitting, by the application server…; receiving, by the client device…; executing, by the client device, the management interface in in response to the receiving…, the management interface comprising…. However, the examiner can think of no way to amend the non-transitory computer readable medium to comprise both the application server and the client device. There is no support in the applicant’s disclosure of a single non-transitory computer readable medium executed by a single processor that executes function on both the application server and the client device.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 and 13 recite:
wherein the access parameters define display criteria of the content previews based on user profile information, and further comprising:
assigning a status indicator to the media content, the status indicator indicating a state of the media content;
retrieving user profile information from the client device in response to detecting the interaction; and
causing display of the content previews based on the user profile information and the state of the media content.
The second claimed “user profile information” does not have antecedent basis to the first claimed “user profile information”, and the claimed “the user profile information” could have antecedent basis to either the first claimed “user profile information” or the second claimed “user profile information”, but cannot have antecedent to both. The examiner, based on the applicant’s specification believes that this antecedent basis issue is merely a typographical error and that the second claimed “user profile information” was intended to recite “the user profile information”. As such, the examiner has raised a Claim Objection rather than a 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,568,446. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-17 of the instant application are obvious variants of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,568,446.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,387,241. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are obvious variants of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,387,241.
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 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite: “causing display of a management interface at a client device in response to detecting interaction with the coded image, the management interface comprising: a presentation of content items; user interface elements enabling modification of content accessibility; receiving user input via the management interface to control availability of content; and modifying access to content based on the user input”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the applicant’s intended scope of this limitation because metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear.
As currently written, one would initially expect the “management interface” to comprise:
a presentation of content items;
user interface elements enabling modification of content accessibility;
receiving user input via the management interface to control availability of content; and
modifying access to content based on the user input.
Thus, the management interface would comprise both the receiving step and the modifying step. While it is certain possible for a graphical user interface to receive user input such input would not normally be received by the graphical user interface via the graphical interface. The examiner has been unable to find support in the applicant’s specification for a graphical user interface that receives user input via the graphical user interface. Likewise, while it would be possible for a graphical user interface to be programmed to modify access to content based on the user input, the examiner can find no disclosure of a graphical user interface actually modifying the access to content based on the user input in the applicant’s specification. As such, interpreting the claims in this manner would result in the instant application being granted a priority date of June 30, 2025, because the instant application could not be a Continuation of Application 17/956,592 as it would contain subject matter not disclosed in Application 17/956,592. Namely, a graphical user interface (i.e., “management interface”) capable of actually modifying access to content based on the user input. This interpretation would also likely result in a 112(a), written description rejection. As per the “Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications” issued on January 21, 2011 and MPEP 2161.01, the first paragraph of § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. The written description requirement of § 112, paragraph 1 applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. In the instant case, the examiner has been unable to find any genus or any species of “management interface” which is caused to be displayed in response to detection interaction with a coded image that actually modifies access to content based on the user input. The specification does not mention the term “management interface” and while the “graphical user interface” in 7b can be displayed in response to detecting a scan of a coded image, there is no disclosure of this graphical user interface being able to actually modify access to content based on the user input. Instead, the applicant’s specification indicates that such modifications based on user input are made by the media preview system.
It is possible that the applicant intended the limitations of the claim to require that the “management interface” to comprise:
a presentation of content items[[;]] , and
user interface elements enabling modification of content accessibility;
and the system, method, and computer program product to perform the steps of:
receiving user input via the management interface to control availability of content; and
modifying access to content based on the user input.
However, interpreting the claims in this manner would require the examiner to assume a typographical error is present in the original claims with the semicolon after the term “item” being incorrect and the applicant intending the term “item” to be followed by: a coma and the term “and”. This interpretation describes an invention which is supported by the applicant’s disclosure thereby resulting in the instant application being granted a priority date of September 21, 2017 and not cause the above 112(a) written description issue.
Given that these two different interpretations result in claims with significantly different scope, as well as affect the priority date and 112(a) written description analysis, the issue clearly result in claims 1, 10, and 19 being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
For the purpose of prosecuting the claims, the examiner is going to interpret the claims as if they contain above typographical error, since this is the only interpretation for which the specification has support. Should it turn out, that the applicant intended the claims to be interpreted in the first manner described above, the examiner reserves the right to raise the priority issue and the 35 USC 112(a) written description in the next office action.
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 directed to a system, a method, and a computer program product which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner’s note: The client device and its functions, as well as the management interface and its functions have been included as part of the abstract idea because they are outside the scope of the claimed system, method, and computer program and, as such, cannot be considered “additional elements” of the claimed system, method, and compute program product.)
receiving media content from one or more client devices;
generating content previews corresponding to the media content;
associating a coded image with the content previews;
causing display of a management interface at a client device in response to detecting interaction with the coded image, the management interface comprising: a presentation of content items; user interface elements enabling modification of content accessibility; receiving user input via the management interface to control availability of content; and modifying access to content based on the user input.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising marketing and sales 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 because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer (e.g., machine) comprising a memory and at least one hardware processor (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving media content from one or more client devices (receiving data);
causing display of a management interface at a client device in response to detecting interaction with the coded image, the management interface comprising: a presentation of content items; user interface elements enabling modification of content accessibility; receiving user input via the management interface to control availability of content; and modifying access to content based on the user input (transmitting data such as transmitting a request to display).
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 processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because 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 a computer (e.g., machine) comprising a memory and at least one hardware processor (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components) 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 ((as evidence from paragraphs 107-108, 114, 117-119 and figure 14 of the applicant’s specification); 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. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving media content from one or more client devices (receiving data);
causing display of a management interface at a client device in response to detecting interaction with the coded image, the management interface comprising: a presentation of content items; user interface elements enabling modification of content accessibility; receiving user input via the management interface to control availability of content; and modifying access to content based on the user input (transmitting data such as transmitting a request to display).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the generating of the content previews which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 2, 11, and 19); further limiting the content previews which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 3 and 12); further limiting the access parameters which is considered part of the abstract idea and adding the additional steps of assigning a status indicator, retrieving user profile information, and transmitting (i.e., causing display) of the content previews which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 4 and 13); further limiting the coded image which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 5 and 14); adding the additional steps of incrementing a counter; determining the number of requests is below a threshold, and transmitting a request to display (causing display) of the management interface which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 6 and 15); further limiting the media content and the content previews which are both considered part of the abstract idea, and adding the additional steps of receiving second media content, generating second content previews, associating the coded image with the second content previews and transmitting (causing display) of a preview library which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 7 and 16); further limiting the user interface elements which are outside the scope of the invention and, as such, are considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 8 and 17); and adding the additional steps of detecting an expiration event and associating a new coded image with the content preview which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 9 and 18), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the 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 § 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-19 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lim et al. (PGPUB: US 2016/0255161) in view of Burns et al. (PGPUB: 2008/0235221).
Claims 1, 10, and 19: Lim discloses a system, a method, and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising:
a memory; and at least one hardware processor coupled to the memory and comprising instructions (Paragraph 30) that causes the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving media content from one or more client devices (Paragraph 51: providing a current URL or network address having content to be delivered in response to a scan of the hardlink code by a wireless device; Paragraph 48: the merchant then provides or otherwise designates its content that is to be delivered in response to a scan or entry of a code by a user);
generating content previews corresponding to the media content;
Lim discloses using rules to determine the particular content to be delivered and delivering the content in at least paragraphs 30 36, 42 and 48.
However, it appears that the content delivered in Lim is media content received from the client device. Thus, Lim does not disclose generating content previews corresponding to the media content or that the rules are for delivering the preview of the media content.
However, the analogous art of Burns discloses that it is well known to generate a preview of the media content and for the owner of the media content to provide access parameters (rules) that include a request limit, the request limit defining a maximum number of access requests to view the preview in at least paragraphs 12 and 14 (the computer system generates previews based on the rules provided by the owners of the protected electronic documents) and paragraph 18 (the rules may specify the number of previews that a client device is allowed for each protected electronic document stored in the electronic documents and protected electronic documents database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Lim to include the ability to generate previews of the content item and for the access parameters of Lim to be applied to the previews.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires the use of known techniques to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way. Lim teaches the “base” method of performing limited the number of accesses to content items. Burns teaches a “comparable” method for controlling access to content items which provides the improvement of not revealing the entire content item and instead merely providing a limited number of accesses to a preview of the content item. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the adaptation of the content item to a preview as disclosed by Burns to the base system of Lim for the predicted result of an improved access control for any audio/video content items the merchant/owner desires to protect.
associating a coded image with the content previews (Lim - Paragraph 36: The operator of the computer system server that distributes the codes may then establish rules for the content to be delivered in response to a scan or other indication of the code from a wireless device; 38: a rule may be established that if a particular code is scanned by a user during the business hours of a merchant, then that merchant's content will be delivered in response to a scan or entry of that particular code; 42: content delivery may be based on the number of times that a hardlink code is scanned by one or more users, the content delivery may be restricted to a certain number of deliveries, based on how many deliveries have been paid for by a particular merchant or other criteria; and Figures 2, and 7-12: which disclose how content is associated with the coded image and some of the rules used for the associating);
causing display of a management interface at a client device in response to detecting interaction with the coded image, the management interface comprising: a presentation of content items; user interface elements enabling modification of content accessibility; receiving user input via the management interface to control availability of content; and modifying access to content based on the user input
Lim and Burns disclose:
causing display of a graphical user interface (i.e., management interface) at a client device in response to detecting interaction with the coded image (Lim - Paragraph 31: the wireless device may be used to image or scan a code, and upon decoding of the same, to initiate a communication with a website operated by the computer server system; 33: in response to a scan or any other indication of a code received by the computer server system, the computer server system may return any of a variety of content including a merchant web site address or web page, a coupon from a merchant, audio/video content, photographs, business contact information, confirmation of sweepstakes entry or the like; 43, 64 and 65: requests includes a user identifier and a scan), the management interface comprising:
a presentation of content items (Lim - Paragraphs 33 and 64-65: in response to a scan or any other indication of a code received by the computer server system, the computer server system may return any of a variety of content including a merchant web site address or web page, a coupon from a merchant, audio/video content, photographs, business contact information, confirmation of sweepstakes entry or the like; the can may in include a user identifier), and
user interface elements enabling modification of content accessibility (Lim – Paragraphs 43, and 64-65: requests include can a user identifier and the scan of the code to enable a customized interface to be provided to an administrator scanning the code; the administrator can also access and update parameters, data and rules associated with the activated codes; 36-37, 41-46 112: rules, data, and conditions which may be updated, wherein the rules are used to determine which content can be accessed by a specific user when scanning the code)and
receiving user input via the management interface to control availability of content (Lim – Paragraphs 64-65: the administrator can also access and update parameters, data and rules associated with the activated codes); and
modifying access to content based on the user input (Lim – Paragraphs 64-65: the administrator can also access and update parameters, data and rules associated with the activated codes; 36-37, 41-46 112: rules, data, and conditions which may be updated, wherein the rules are used to determine which content can be accessed by a specific user when scanning the code).
Claims 3 and 12: Lim and Burns disclose the system of claim 1, and the method of claim 10, wherein the content previews correspond with access parameters that include a threshold of a request limit and geolocation criteria. (Lim - Paragraphs 42 and 48: content delivery may be based on the number of times that a hardlink code is scanned by one or more users, the content delivery may be restricted to a certain number of deliveries, based on how many deliveries have been paid for by a particular merchant or other criteria; the merchant determines or identifies those conditions under which they would like their content delivered to users in response to the scan or entry of a code, the merchant may indicate time of day, date range, geographic location, weather conditions, user attributes (population of users) and the like as conditions for delivery of their content. these variables are then used to generate rules under which the merchant content is to be delivered to a wireless device)
Claims 4 and 13. Lim and Burns disclose the system of claim 3, and the method of claim 12,
wherein the access parameters define display criteria of the content previews based on user profile information (Lim – Paragraph 43: conditional content delivery can be based on any information known about the user; for example, a user may register her wireless device with the computer server system by providing personal identification information (name, address, telephone number), demographic information, and the like; or user interactions with the computer server system can be tracked anonymously, without any personal identification of the consumer or user, by use of such cookie or identifier; 78: numerous conditions can be used for activating which content is displayed such as location, time at location, current date, number of visits by customer, average length of previous customer visit, current temperature, and QR code scan touchpoint; 132: day of week at client device, time at client device, weather at client device; temperature at client device, humidity at client device, from which website client device arrived can all be used to determine conditions that are assigned to serving a specific content item), and
further comprising:
assigning a status indicator to the media content, the status indicator indicating a state of the media content (Lim - Paragraph 93: a company can have multiple brands and each brand can have established ‘states,’ such as Active or Inactive; 126: content re-direction destinations when active each have assigned conditions that dictate under what criteria that specific content item is served;
retrieving user profile information from the client device in response to detecting the interaction (Lim – Paragraph 43: conditional content delivery can be based on any information known about the user; for example, a user may register her wireless device with the computer server system by providing personal identification information (name, address, telephone number), demographic information, and the like; or user interactions with the computer server system can be tracked anonymously, without any personal identification of the consumer or user, by use of such cookie or identifier; 78: numerous conditions can be used for activating which content is displayed such as location, time at location, current date, number of visits by customer, average length of previous customer visit, current temperature, and QR code scan touchpoint; 132: day of week at client device, time at client device, weather at client device; temperature at client device, humidity at client device, from which website client device arrived can all be used to determine conditions that are assigned to serving a specific content item); and
causing display of the content previews based on the user profile information and the state of the media content (Lim – Paragraph 43: conditional content delivery can be based on any information known about the user; for example, a user may register her wireless device with the computer server system by providing personal identification information (name, address, telephone number), demographic information, and the like; or user interactions with the computer server system can be tracked anonymously, without any personal identification of the consumer or user, by use of such cookie or identifier; 78: numerous conditions can be used for activating which content is displayed such as location, time at location, current date, number of visits by customer, average length of previous customer visit, current temperature, and QR code scan touchpoint; 79: administrator runs a campaign in the month of January for one dollar off a cup of a hot or cold drink upon the first scan of a hardlink code, such as a QR code, depending on the temperature at the location of the customer; upon additional scans, a second offer is presented to a customer; this campaign thus provides a different experience for consumers based on the real world conditions surrounding them, as well as their past interactions with the administrator's brand or company; 132: day of week at client device, time at client device, weather at client device; temperature at client device, humidity at client device, from which website client device arrived can all be used to determine conditions that are assigned to serving a specific content item).
Claims 6 and 15: Lim and Burns disclose the system of claim 1, and the method of claim 10, further comprising:
incrementing a counter associated with the content previews responsive to detecting interaction with the coded image, the counter indicating a number of requests to access the content previews (Lim - Figures 13 and 15: count of QR code scans; Paragraph 72: Touchpoints should each have their own unique attributes so that traffic source through a touchpoint can be tracked so that, for example, an administrator of a marketing campaign can see the number of QR scans; 81: customer devices interactions with a touchpoint using a scan of a hardlink or QR code are counted);
determining that the number of requests is below a threshold of a request limit; and causing display of the management interface based on the number of requests being below the threshold.
Lim and Burns as currently combined to not disclose • determining that the number of requests is below a threshold of a request limit; and causing display of the management interface based on the number of requests being below the threshold.
However, the prior art of Burns disclose that it is well known to determine that the number of requests is below a threshold of a request limit; and causing display of the management interface based on the number of requests being below the threshold (Burns – Paragraph 29: The maximum number of additional previews specified in the rule for the particular protected electronic document is subtracted from the number of partial views accessed by the user of the client device. This difference yields the count of the remaining previews allowed for the particular protected electronic document) and causing display of a notification at the client device based on the request, the notification including an indication of the difference (Burns – Paragraph 24: the web page may include indicators that represent a number of additional previews remaining for the client device, when viewing or accessing a particular protected electronic document).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Lim and Burns to further include the ability determine that the number of requests is below a threshold of a request limit; and causing display of the management interface based on the number of requests being below the threshold as disclosed by Burns.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It can be seen that each element claimed is taught by either Lim and Burns or Burns. Determining that the number of requests is below a threshold of a request limit; and causing display of the management interface based on the number of requests being below the threshold as taught by Burns does not change or effect the normal function of the invention of Lim and Burns as previously combined because access to the previews would still be limited in the same manner even with the addition of determining that the number of requests is below a threshold of a request limit; and causing display of the management interface based on the number of requests being below the threshold. Since the functionalities of the elements do not interfere with each other results of the combination would be predictable in that users will be able to be kept informed of the when they will no longer have access to the previews of the content item.
Claims 8 and 17: Lim and Burns disclose the system of claim 1, and the method of claim 10, wherein the user interface elements enabling modification of content accessibility include controls for:
detecting an expiration of the content previews based on access parameters (Lim – Paragraph 48: the merchant determines or identifies those conditions, such as time of day, date range, under which they would like their content delivered to users in response to the scan or entry of a code; 55: a rule may state that between the hours of 12 AM and 6 PM on Mondays, Content X is to be delivered in response to a scan of the designated hardlink code by a user, while between 6 PM and 12 AM on Mondays, Content Y is to be delivered; 56: a rule may state that between the dates of Oct. 1, 2011 and Oct. 31, 2011, Content X is to be delivered in response to a scan of the designated hardlink code by a user, while between Nov. 1, 2011 and Nov. 30, 2011, Content Y is to be delivered; Figures 11 and 12: disclose the time and date based rules associated with accessing content, attempts to access the designated content outside of the time and date based rules (expiration or the timer) for said content results in different content being displayed);
receiving a scan of the coded image after the expiration (Lim – Paragraph 55: a rule may state that between the hours of 12 AM and 6 PM on Mondays, Content X is to be delivered in response to a scan of the designated hardlink code by a user, while between 6 PM and 12 AM on Mondays, Content Y is to be delivered; 56: a rule may state that between the dates of Oct. 1, 2011 and Oct. 31, 2011, Content X is to be delivered in response to a scan of the designated hardlink code by a user, while between Nov. 1, 2011 and Nov. 30, 2011, Content Y is to be delivered; and 58: different content may be dynamically delivered to different users, or the same user at different times; Figures 11 and 12: disclose the time and date based rules associated with accessing content, a second scan attempting to access the designated content outside of the time and date based rules (expiration or the timer) for said content results in different content being displayed); and
denying access to the content previews (Lim – Paragraph 55: a rule may state that between the hours of 12 AM and 6 PM on Mondays, Content X is to be delivered in response to a scan of the designated hardlink code by a user, while between 6 PM and 12 AM on Mondays, Content Y is to be delivered; 56: a rule may state that between the dates of Oct. 1, 2011 and Oct. 31, 2011, Content X is to be delivered in response to a scan of the designated hardlink code by a user, while between Nov. 1, 2011 and Nov. 30, 2011, Content Y is to be delivered; and 58: different content may be dynamically delivered to different users, or the same user at different times; Figures 11 and 12: disclose the time and date based rules associated with accessing content, a second scan attempting to access the designated content outside of the time and date based rules (expiration or the timer) for said content results in the access for the original content being denied and different content being displayed).
Claims 9 and 18: Lim and Burns disclose the system of claim 1, and the method of claim 17, further comprising:
detecting an expiration event based on the access parameters (Lim – Paragraph 48: the merchant determines or identifies those conditions, such as time of day, date range, under which they would like their content delivered to users in response to the scan or entry of a code; 55: a rule may state that between the hours of 12 AM and 6 PM on Mondays, Content X is to be delivered in response to a scan of the designated hardlink code by a user, while between 6 PM and 12 AM on Mondays, Content Y is to be delivered; 56: a rule may state that between the dates of Oct. 1, 2011 and Oct. 31, 2011, Content X is to be delivered in response to a scan of the designated hardlink code by a user, while between Nov. 1, 2011 and Nov. 30, 2011, Content Y is to be delivered; Figures 11 and 12: disclose the time and date based rules associated with accessing content, attempts to access the designated content outside of the time and date based rules (expiration or the timer) for said content results in different content being displayed);
associating a new coded image with the content previews in response to denying access; and notifying an administrator associated with the media content of the new coded image (Lim - Paragraph 36: The operator of the computer system server that distributes the codes may then establish rules for the content to be delivered in response to a scan or other indication of the code from a wireless device; 38: a rule may be established that if a particular code is scanned by a user during the business hours of a merchant, then that merchant's content will be delivered in response to a scan or entry of that particular code; 42: content delivery may be based on the number of times that a hardlink code is scanned by one or more users, the content delivery may be restricted to a certain number of deliveries, based on how many deliveries have been paid for by a particular merchant or other criteria; 44: the computer server system may also provide end of range warning to indicate when certain rules are about to expire or reach their established, maximum threshold of delivery; and Figures 2, and 7-12: which disclose how content is associated with the coded image and some of the rules used for the associating. The examiner interprets this limitation as just repeating the original step of associating at some later time so that the media content can now be associated with a new coded image and is therefore, taught by Lim in the same manner).
Claims 2, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (PGPUB: US 2016/0255161) in view of Burns et al. (PGPUB: 2008/0235221) in further view of Pelletier (US Patent Number: 7,188,085).
Claims 2, 11, and 20: The system of claim 1, the method of claim 10, and the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein generating the content previews includes applying a digital watermark to the media content.
Lim and Burns disclose the system of claim 1, the method of claim 11, and the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 20 wherein the generating the preview of the media content includes placing a cookie (tracking mechanism) associated with the media content preview on the wireless device when it interacts with the media content preview in at least Lim: paragraphs 43, 63, 65, and 120.
Lim and Burns do not specifically disclose that such the tracking mechanism is a digital watermark and the application of the digital watermark to the generated media content preview.
However, the analogous art of Pelletier teaches a known technique for using a digital watermark as a tracking mechanism and applying the digital watermark to a media content in at least column 12, lines 16-56.
This known technique is applicable to disclosure of Lim and Burns because it shares characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed towards tracking media content. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Pelletier would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Pelletier would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied show the ability to incorporate such a tracking mechanism into similar systems. Further, applying a digital watermark tracking system to Lim and Burns would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would still allow for usage tracking but prevent the unauthorized sharing of the displayed media content preview offers with others that have not scanned the QR code.
Claims 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (PGPUB: US 2016/0255161) in view of Burns et al. (PGPUB: 2008/0235221) in further view of Benchoff (“How To Put Your Logo In A QR Code”, August 11, 2011, https://hackaday.com/2011/08/11/how-to-put-your-logo-in-a-qr-code/comment-page-2/, pages 1-16).
Claims 5 and 14. The system of claim 1, and the method of claim 10, wherein the coded image comprises a QR code that integrates a display of an entity logo associated with an entity as a machine-readable finder pattern within the QR code.
Lim and Burns discloses generating a coded image in at least paragraph 34 of Lim where he states that a hardlink codes such as a QR code from a QR code distributor or other operator of the computer server system establishes a unique code, such as that depicted in FIG. 1 of Lim, in which a web site address or URL is encoded and paragraph 45 of Lim where he states that the hardlink code can be a QR code or other symbology.
Lim and Burns does not specifically disclose that the coded image includes a display of an entity logo associated with the entity.
However, the analogous art of Benchoff discloses that it is well known to generate a coded image of a QR code that includes a display of an entity logo associated with an entity on at least page 4 (first and second image) and the image on page 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included the logos of Benchoff in the QR codes of Lim and Burns.
The rationale for doing so it that it merely requires use of known techniques to improve similar products (QR codes) in the same way as determined using the following: Lim and Burns teaches the “base” form of generating a QR code; Benchoff teaches a “comparable” method with respect to generating a QR code with the improvement of adding a logo to the QR code that enhances the brand recognition of the QR code which could potential entice more users to scan the code; the QR code of Benchoff operates in the same manner as the QR code of Lim; One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of the QR code in Benchoff to the base QR code of Lim would result in an enhancement to brand recognition associated with the QR code.
Claims 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (PGPUB: US 2016/0255161) in view of Burns et al. (PGPUB: 2008/0235221) in further view of Bush et al (PGPUB: 2004/0078312).
Claims 7 and 16: Lim and Burns disclose the system of claim 1, and the method of claim 10,
wherein the media content is first media content (Lim – Paragraphs 45-46, 48 112 as combined with Burns - Paragraphs 30 36, 42 and 48 above: a first content preview associated with a first media content is provided to a first user scanning the code),
the content previews are first content previews ((Lim – Paragraphs 45-46, 48 112 as combined with Burns - Paragraphs 30 36, 42 and 48 above: a first content preview associated with a first media content is provided to a first user scanning the code), and
further comprising:
receiving second media content (Lim – Paragraphs 45-46, 48 112 as combined with Burns - Paragraphs 30 36, 42 and 48 above: a second content preview associated with a second media content is provided to a second user scanning the code);
generating second content previews of the second media content (Lim – Paragraphs 45-46, 48 112 as combined with Burns - Paragraphs 30 36, 42 and 48 above: both a first content preview associated with a first media content and a second content previews are is generated);
associating the coded image with the second content previews (Lim - Paragraph 36, 38, 42, and Figures 2, and 7-12 as combined above with Burns - Paragraphs 30 36, 42 and 48 above: disclose associating the coded image with both first content previews and second content previews); and
causing display of a preview library in the management interface, the preview library including presentations of the first content previews and the second content previews.
Lim and Burns, as combined above, disclose that a user may scan the coded image to display an administrator web page with content previews associated with the coded image and to access and update parameters, data and rules associated with the activated codes, wherein each coded image can be associated with a number of different preview contents each with different access parameters in at least paragraphs 45-46, 64-65 and 112.
Lim and Burns do not specifically state that the administrator is displayed an image library of the preview content.
However, the analogous art of Bush discloses that it is know for a series of images to be organized into an image library, to display the image library to a user when accesses the web page, wherein the user is able modify content accessibility at least paragraphs 25-27, 34-38, and 87-88.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lim and Burns to include a preview library as disclosed by Bush for the previewing contents associated with the QR code when the administrator scans the QR code.
The rationale for doing so is that it would merely require combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It can be seen that each element claimed is taught in either Lim and Burns, as combined, or Bush. Organizing the preview contents by using a preview library (taught by Bush) does not change nor effect the normal functions of providing an administrator interface when the QR code is scanned as disclosed by Lim and Burns. Since, the functionalities of the elements in Lime and Burns, as combined, and Bush do not interfere with each other the results of the combination would be predictable in that the different preview contents associated with the QR code would be presented in an organized manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mahkovec et al. (PGPUB: 2017/0329990) which discloses a system for receiving media contents from client devices; generating content previews corresponding to each of the media content; associating coded images to each of the content previews; displaying a preview in response to the scan, wherein the preview includes the content preview, wherein a preview interface allows the user to modify the accessibility of the content preview;
Singh (US Patent: 11,284,170) which disclose generating preview content from a source content by extracting video snippets from the source content, and storing a plurality of preview content in a preview video repository.
Harvey et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0040001) which discloses displaying a preview library of active media content preview offers at the client device in response to the receiving the scan, the preview library including presentations of the first media content preview offer and the second media content preview offer.
Lardinois ("Microsoft Gives Up On Its Tag Barcode Service, Schedules It For Shutdown In 2015", August 19, 2013, https://techcrunch.com/2013/08/19/ microsoft-gives-up-on-its-tag-barcode-service-schedules-it-for-shutdown-in-2015/, pages 1-3) which discloses that the ability to customize a scannable Microsoft Tag to include a company logo.
Fang (CA 2854169) which discloses using scannable QR codes for presenting advertisements; counting the number of times a scan occurs; and charges advertisers based on a pay-per-scan methodology for the advertisement presented as a result of the scan; and disassociates the advertisement one a budget value is reached.
Wardhaugh et al. (PGPUB: US 2008/0010351) which discloses displaying a redirect page with a user customized message once the online content has expired or reached a maximum respondent limit.
Birnbaum et al. (PGPUB: 2016/0149956) which discloses including user identifiers in access parameters for a population of users to be able to access media items.
Marsico (PGPUB: 2015/0039409) which discloses receiving media content, using an administrative module to set access parameters associate with the media content, receiving a scan of a coded image, and displaying the media content in response to receiving the scan.
Boal (PGPUB: 2014/0180790) which discloses determining a count of the number of access requests to view a preview, determining that count has exceed a threshold, and disassociating the preview with the link when the threshold has been exceed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm 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, Spar Ilana can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights