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 .
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 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12393977 (‘977). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See Table below for comparison of independent claim.
Instant Application ‘977
1. A system comprising: at least one processor;
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:assigning a priority value to a media filter in association with a first geolocation provided by a first client device, the priority value determining an order in which the media filter is presented relative to other media filters;sending, to a second client device, identification of a plurality of filters comprising at least the media filter based at least in part on a second geolocation of the second client device, the plurality of filters for presenting on the second device based at least in part on the priority value assigned to the media filter in association with the first geolocation; and receiving, from the second client device, a message comprising media content overlaid by the media filter.
1. A system comprising: at least one processor;
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a first client device, a content item and a first geolocation, the first geolocation having been manually selected by a user of the first client device;
generating a media filter from the content item, the media filter being associated with the first geolocation;
assigning a priority value to the media filter in association with the first geolocation, the priority value determining an order in which the media filter is presented relative to other media filters;
sending, to a second client device, identification of a plurality of filters comprising at least the media filter based at least in part on a second geolocation associated with the second client device, the plurality of filters for presenting on the second device based at least in part on the priority value assigned to the media filter in association with the first geolocation; and receiving, from the second client device, a message comprising media content overlaid by the media filter.
Claims 16 and 20 of the Instant Application correspond to claim 1 of the Instant Application and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 2-15 of the Instant Application correspond to claims 2-15 of the ‘977 and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 17-19 of the Instant Application correspond to claims 2-4 of the Instant Application and are rejected accordingly.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEvilly et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0218968 A1, hereinafter “McEvilly”) in view of Ge et al. (Patent No. US 8,171,048 B2, hereinafter “Ge”).
Regarding claim 1, McEvilly teaches:
at least one processor; a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: (McEvilly – [0047, 0051, 0056].)
media filter (McEvilly – the user may create digital images such as photographs, videos, holograms, animated photograph sequences, other photographic data objects, and the like (collectively hereinafter referred to as a “media data object file”), and choose templates that can overlay, underlay, watermark, or frame the media data object file(s) (i.e. media filter), that the user creates or has already created at a particular location, or object or brand [0012].)
media filter (McEvilly – the user may create digital images such as photographs, videos, holograms, animated photograph sequences, other photographic data objects, and the like (collectively hereinafter referred to as a “media data object file”), and choose templates that can overlay, underlay, watermark, or frame the media data object file(s) (i.e. media filter), that the user creates or has already created at a particular location, or object or brand [0012].)
media filters (McEvilly – the user may create digital images such as photographs, videos, holograms, animated photograph sequences, other photographic data objects, and the like (collectively hereinafter referred to as a “media data object file”), and choose templates that can overlay, underlay, watermark, or frame the media data object file(s) (i.e. media filter), that the user creates or has already created at a particular location, or object or brand [0012].)
sending, to a second client device, identification of a plurality of filters comprising at least the media filter based at least in part on a second geolocation of the second client device, the plurality [of filters] for presenting on the second device based at least in part (McEvilly – the user (i.e. second client device) may create digital images such as photographs, other photographic data objects, and the like (“media data object file”) and choose templates (i.e. media filter, previously created or created by the user or a marketing administrator) that can overlay, underlay, watermark, or frame the media data object file(s), that the user creates or has already created at a particular location, or object or brand [0013]. In Fig. 11, 1118, the server-side database, where the template resides, is queried by the client [0103]. Based upon the geo-location of the client (i.e. second geolocation), a subset of the set of templates stored in the template database on the server is provided to the user [0080, 0058].)
of filters (McEvilly – the user may create digital images such as photographs, videos, holograms, animated photograph sequences, other photographic data objects, and the like (collectively hereinafter referred to as a “media data object file”), and choose templates that can overlay, underlay, watermark, or frame the media data object file(s) (i.e. media filter), that the user creates or has already created at a particular location, or object or brand [0012].)
media filter (McEvilly – the user may create digital images such as photographs, videos, holograms, animated photograph sequences, other photographic data objects, and the like (collectively hereinafter referred to as a “media data object file”), and choose templates that can overlay, underlay, watermark, or frame the media data object file(s) (i.e. media filter), that the user creates or has already created at a particular location, or object or brand [0012].)
and receiving, from the second client device, a message comprising media content overlaid by the media filter (McEvilly – at step 1120, the user optionally adds personal data in addition to personal visual media data object files, communicating experience with the object described in the template. At step 1122, the client application further overlays, underlays, frames or watermarks personal semantic data. At step 1124, the user sends the composition (i.e. media content overlaid by the media filter, either synthesized or kept separate as individual components for subsequent synthesis or non-synthesized rendering) [0101, 0103-0104]. Note that the system may send a user a previously created digital postcard [0092], indicating that the digital postcard is received by the system.)
McEvilly does not appear to teach:
assigning a priority value to a media [filter] in association with a first geolocation provided by a first client device, the priority value determining an order in which the media [filter] is presented relative to other media [filters]
on the priority value assigned to the media [filter] in association with the first geolocation
However, Ge teaches:
assigning a priority value to a media [filter] in association with a first geolocation provided by a first client device, the priority value determining an order in which the media [filter] is presented relative to other media [filters] (Ge -a user 112a can generate a search query at a client device (i.e. first client device) [Col. 4 lines 30-37]. In Fig. 2, block 206, one or more locations (i.e. geolocation, see Col. 7 lines 44-53, where the user may explicitly provide the location information, or it may be based on the user’s network address, etc.) associated with the search query are determined [Col. 7 lines 44-46]. In Fig. 2, block 212, a distance score is determined. For example, one or more locations associated with each of the identified documents is determined, and a distance score is calculated for each document based, at least in part, on the distance between the location(s) associated with the document and the location associated with the search query. The distance score can be a distance measure, such as, for example, the straight-line distance between a document location and the search query location [Col. 8 lines 33-45]. A ranking score (i.e. priority value) can be determined for a document, which includes incorporating the distance score [Col. 6 lines 63-67, Col. 7 lines 1-14]. Documents include audio/video/multimedia files [Col. 1 lines 36-41].)
on the priority value assigned to the media [filter] in association with the first geolocation (Ge -a user 112a can generate a search query at a client device (i.e. first client device) [Col. 4 lines 30-37]. In Fig. 2, block 206, one or more locations (i.e. geolocation, see Col. 7 lines 44-53, where the user may explicitly provide the location information, or it may be based on the user’s network address, etc.) associated with the search query are determined [Col. 7 lines 44-46]. In Fig. 2, block 212, a distance score is determined. For example, one or more locations associated with each of the identified documents is determined, and a distance score is calculated for each document based, at least in part, on the distance between the location(s) associated with the document and the location associated with the search query. The distance score can be a distance measure, such as, for example, the straight-line distance between a document location and the search query location [Col. 8 lines 33-45]. A ranking score (i.e. priority value) can be determined for a document, which includes incorporating the distance score [Col. 6 lines 63-67, Col. 7 lines 1-14]. Documents include audio/video/multimedia files [Col. 1 lines 36-41].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly and Ge before them, to modify the system of McEvilly with Ge, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide the most relevant documents considered both geographic and non-geographic relevance and to, therefore, provide users with quick access to better search results (Ge - [Col. 2 lines 38-41]).
Claim 16 and 20 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, McEvilly teaches:
supplying the second client device with the media filter in response to the second geolocation being within the first geolocation (McEvilly – based on the user’s geo-location, a subset of templates stored in the template database is provided (i.e. media filter is generated) to the user. For example, if the user provides the geo-location information about Venue A (i.e. first geolocation), a subset of templates related to Venue A (i.e. second geolocation, where examiner interprets that the second geolocation may be an establishment, see [0024]) are provided to the user. Alternatively, or in combination, if the user provides a famous person (i.e. content item) to the template database, then a subset of templates relating to that famous person is provided to the user. Similarly, if the user provides a particular branded product information (i.e. content item) to the system, a subset of templates relating to that particular product is then sent to the user [0080].)
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 10, McEvilly teaches:
storing previously provided media filters in a media filter collection associated with the second client device; and presenting media filters from the media filter collection associated with second client device in response to receiving a geolocation associated with the media filters (McEvilly – in Fig. 5, 504, the administrator or community (crowd source) uploads a custom template (i.e. media filter) and associates it with a geo-location, an object, a branded product/service, and/or experience. At step 506, the administrator saves the template to the template database for subsequent access by end users such as mobile end users [0093]. Based upon the geo-location of the client, a subset of the set of templates stored in the template database on the server is provided to the user [0080, 0058].)
Claims 3-6, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEvilly in view of Ge in view of Ramalingam (International Publication Number WO 2011/119407 A1, hereinafter “Ramalingam”).
Regarding claim 3, McEvilly modified by Ge does not appear to teach:
receiving an identification of a period of time associated with the media content and the first geolocation
However, Ramalingam teaches:
receiving an identification of a period of time associated with the media content and the first geolocation (Ramalingam – see Fig. 17 - 1712, where the advertisements may remain on the mobile device for variable periods of time. Some advertisements may expire after a fixed amount of time such as one minute. Advertisements may also expire based on geolocation of the mobile device so that when the mobile device leaves a geolocation near the merchant, that merchant's advertisement is replaced by a different advertisement [0135].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly, Ge, and Ramalingam before them, to modify the system of McEvilly and Ge with the teachings of Ramalingam, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to facilitate transactions and enhance advertising to the benefit of both consumers and merchants (Ramalingam - [0004]).
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 4, McEvilly modified by Ge does not appear to teach:
receiving a first content item from a first merchant and a second content item from a second merchant; receiving a first geolocation information from the first merchant, and a second geolocation information from the second merchant to identify a common geolocation based on the first geolocation information and the second geolocation information, the common geolocation corresponding to the first geolocation
receiving a first bid amount from the first merchant and a second bid amount from the second merchant; and identifying a highest bid amount from the first and second bid amounts
However, Ramalingam teaches:
receiving a first content item from a first merchant and a second content item from a second merchant; receiving a first geolocation information from the first merchant, and a second geolocation information from the second merchant to identify a common geolocation based on the first geolocation information and the second geolocation information, the common geolocation corresponding to the first geolocation (Ramalingam - see Fig. 5, inherently, in order for the ad database to be populated, content items like advertising, coupons, etc., are provided by more than one merchant (i.e. first merchant and second merchant) and stored in a database, in order to subsequently be delivered to users [0073]. Common geolocation demonstrated where restaurants located on the same street are identified - For example, restaurant advertisements may only be sent to mobile devices that are within a quarter mile of the restaurant geolocation [0132].)
receiving a first bid amount from the first merchant and a second bid amount from the second merchant; and identifying a highest bid amount from the first and second bid amounts (Ramalingam – see Fig. 17 1708, where once a pool of merchants has been identified based on at least geolocation and advertisement preference, bids are received from those merchants [0133]. A winning bid that determines the selected advertisement may be the bid associated with a largest amount of money [0134].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly, Ge, and Ramalingam before them, to modify the system of McEvilly and Ge with the teachings of Ramalingam, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to facilitate transactions and enhance advertising to the benefit of both consumers and merchants (Ramalingam - [0004]).
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 5, McEvilly modified by Ge does not appear to teach:
generating a merchant-based media filter based on a respective content item of the merchant with the highest bid amount and the common geolocation, the merchant-based media filter corresponding to the media filter
and disabling the merchant-based media filter after a predetermined duration has elapsed
However, Ramalingam teaches:
generating a merchant-based media filter based on a respective content item of the merchant with the highest bid amount and the common geolocation, the merchant-based media filter corresponding to the media filter (Ramalingam – see Fig. 17 1712, where the selected advertisement is presented on the mobile device. The advertisement may be supplied from the ad database…may be generated based on the advertisement content…" [0135].)
and disabling the merchant-based media filter after a predetermined duration has elapsed (Ramalingam – see Fig. 17 1712, where the advertisements may remain on the mobile device for variable periods of time [0135].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly, Ge, and Ramalingam before them, to modify the system of McEvilly, Ge, and Ramalingam with the teachings of Ramalingam, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to facilitate transactions and enhance advertising to the benefit of both consumers and merchants (Ramalingam - [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, McEvilly modified by Ge does not appear to teach:
wherein the common geolocation includes a common region formed between a first geolocation from the first merchant and a second geolocation from the second merchant
However, Ramalingam teaches:
wherein the common geolocation includes a common region formed between a first geolocation from the first merchant and a second geolocation from the second merchant (Ramalingam - common geolocation demonstrated where restaurants located on the same street are identified [0132].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly, Ge, and Ramalingam before them, to modify the system of McEvilly and Ge with the teachings of Ramalingam, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to facilitate transactions and enhance advertising to the benefit of both consumers and merchants (Ramalingam - [0004]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEvilly in view of Ge in view of Llano et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0099800 A1, hereinafter “Llano”).
Regarding claim 7, McEvilly modified by Ge does not appear to teach:
identifying a live event associated with the second geolocation
accessing live event data related to the live event
and generating a live event media filter based on the live event data and the second geolocation
However, Llano teaches:
identifying a live event associated with the second geolocation (Llano – see Figure 4, [0037] demonstrates creation of geolocation of client device, [0038] demonstrates identifying a live event associated with the geolocation.)
accessing live event data related to the live event (Llano - based on geocode information, it may determine the specific play or status of the game at the moment in time that the image was taken (e.g., by consulting real time statistics from the event module 144)” [0019].)
and generating a live event media filter based on the live event data and the second geolocation (Llano - [0038] demonstrates generating a live event media filter where the content engine 140 operates on the request to identify the location and event associated with the image, and identifies relevant data, images and other information to return to the mobile device 102. Processing continues at 408 where the mobile device 102 receives the meta data.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly, Ge, and Llano before them, to modify the system of McEvilly and Ge with the teachings of Llano, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because providing live event information enhances the user experience (Llano - [0013]).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEvilly in view of Ge in view of Kendall (Pub. No. US 2012/0197724 A1, hereinafter “Kendall”).
Regarding claim 8, McEvilly modified by Ge does not appear to teach:
accessing social network data based on social network information from second client device
and generating a social network media filter based on the social network data and the social network information from second client device
However, Kendall teaches:
accessing social network data based on social network information from second client device (Kendall – see Figure 1 101, 102, 103, 104, [0022], [0023]. Figure 1 - 122, where the US app describes a system that selects advertisements by matching…advertisements and a user's user profile information...and presents the selected advertisements to the user [0020], and the front end may interact with client device through network cloud [0022]. Also see Figure 2 - 201, where the mobile advertising process may receive data indicating a location of a target user [0026].)
and generating a social network media filter based on the social network data and the social network information from second client device (Kendall – see Figure 2 - 202, [0028]-[0031].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly, Ge, and Kendall before them, to modify the system of McEvilly and Ge with the teachings of Kendall, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to increase the effectiveness of content delivery (Kendall - [0020]).
Regarding claim 15, McEvilly modified by Ge does not appear to teach:
generating a graphical user interface for displaying a map, receiving a selection of boundaries in the map, and including a geographic region formed with the selection of boundaries in the first geolocation
However, Kendall teaches:
generating a graphical user interface for displaying a map, receiving a selection of boundaries in the map, and including a geographic region formed with the selection of boundaries in the first geolocation (Kendall – as discussed above, each place maintained by the geo-social networking system exist as a hub node and be provided as a page served to users of the social networking system. The page may identify the name of the place, the geographical location of the place, graphical maps… [0021]. A user may register a new place by accessing a client application to define a place name or a place identifier, and provide a geographic location (i.e. selection of boundaries) and cause the newly created place to be registered in location database [0023].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly, Ge, and Kendall before them, to modify the system of McEvilly and Ge with the teachings of Kendall, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to increase the effectiveness of content delivery (Kendall - [0020]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEvilly in view of Ge in view of Thramann (Pub No. US 2013/0080254 A1, hereinafter “Thramann”).
Regarding claim 9, McEvilly modified by Ge does not appear to teach:
generating a set of media filters including the media filter for a merchant for a predefined geolocation of the merchant, the predefined geolocation corresponding to the first geolocation
randomly selecting the media filter from the set of media filters
and providing the media filter to the second client device, in response to the second geolocation
corresponding to the predefined geolocation of the merchant
However, Thramann teaches:
generating a set of media filters including the media filter for a merchant for a predefined geolocation of the merchant, the predefined geolocation corresponding to the first geolocation (Thramann - Figure 5, 430 provides a mechanism to allow a merchant to monitor its account…may allow the merchant to monitor the number and type of advertisements transmitted [0053]. In Figure 7, 450, 452, the advertising receiving module 450 transfers the uploaded information from the interface to the advertising storage module 452 for the service to retain the advertising [0051]. In Figure 7, 454, the advertising selection module would select a particular advertisement from the one or more advertising options stored in advertising storage module 452...the selected advertisement is transmitted to the client device 432 [0051].)
randomly selecting the media filter from the set of media filters (Thramann - the selection may be based on multiple criteria, such as, for example, a random selection, a selection based on a number of advertisements that must be distributed for a particular level of service, a deal of the day option, a holiday selection, etc. [0051].)
and providing the media filter to the second client device, in response to the second geolocation (Thramann – it may be possible to further tune the above described system to provide more location specific information...the network operations center 602, using GPS 604, would track client device 432 in real or near real time. The actual location would be compared to the merchant 608 coordinates [0055].)
corresponding to the predefined geolocation of the merchant (Thramann - "The selected advertisement may be based on the proximity of the merchant to the location, which may be determined by distance, zip code, or the like. The selected advertisement is transmitted to the client device 432" [0051].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly, Ge, and Kendall before them, to modify the system of McEvilly and Ge with the teachings of Kendall, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because randomness improves the user experience; it increases the chance that the receiver will get an advertisement which was different from the last delivered advertisement, making it more likely that the receiver will look at the ad.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEvilly in view of Ge in view of Cummins et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0311255 A1, hereinafter “Cummins”).
Regarding claim 11, McEvilly modified by Ge does not appear to teach:
generating a progressive use media filter for a predefined geolocation; and adjusting a content of the progressive use media filter in response to a number of prior uses of the progressive use media filter
However, Cummins teaches:
generating a progressive use media filter for a predefined geolocation; and adjusting a content of the progressive use media filter in response to a number of prior uses of the progressive use media filter (Cummins – see Fig. 4B 420, where the generation of a progressive use media filter occurs implicitly in [0057] – [0059], where the server is updated with progressive use information and that information is transmitted to the client device. The at least one limitation can be one or more of a fixed number of coupons that can be redeemed, stock limit or time limit for example, which counts down or decrements as coupons are redeemed, the countdown being display on the user device [0007].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly, Ge, and Cummins before them, to modify the system of McEvilly and Ge with the teachings of Cummins, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because adding gamification elements influences the behavior of consumers (Cummins - [0024]), such that consumers are more likely to take advantage of an offer if gamification elements are incorporated (Cummins – [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, McEvilly modified by Ge does not appear to teach:
disabling the progressive use media filter after the number of prior uses of the progressive use media filter reaches a predefined progressive use limit
However, Cummins teaches:
generating a progressive use media filter for a predefined geolocation; and adjusting a content of the progressive use media filter in response to a number of prior uses of the progressive use media filter (Cummins – see Fig. 4B 420, where the generation of a progressive use media filter occurs implicitly in [0057] – [0059], where the server is updated with progressive use information and that information is transmitted to the client device. The at least one limitation can be one or more of a fixed number of coupons that can be redeemed, stock limit or time limit for example, which counts down or decrements as coupons are redeemed, the countdown being display on the user device [0007].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly, Ge, and Cummins before them, to modify the system of McEvilly, Ge, and Cummins with the teachings of Cummins, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because adding gamification elements influences the behavior of consumers (Cummins - [0024]), such that consumers are more likely to take advantage of an offer if gamification elements are incorporated (Cummins – [0003]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEvilly in view of Ge in view of Polachek (Pub. No. US 2009/0292608 A1, hereinafter “Polachek”).
Regarding claim 13, McEvilly teaches:
generating a viral use media filter for a predefined geolocation (McEvilly – Fig. 2, 202 discloses the system in Fig. 1, 100 receiving the user’s geolocation and in Fig. 2, 204 sending the user templates which are based on the user’s geolocation. The user then sends a media data object to the system and the user chooses one of the templates to be combined with the media data object file by the system [0080-0081]. Examiner interprets that the chosen template is the media filter.)
providing the viral use media filter to a first client device located at the predefined geolocation (McEvilly – Fig. 2, 202 discloses that the system in Fig. 1, 100 receives the user’s geolocation and supplies the user with a number of templates related to the geolocation, after which the user chooses a template and provides the system with a media data object file from the user. The system then combines the template and the media data object file and sends it to the user [0080-0081]. Examiner interprets that the chosen template is the media filter.)
McEvilly modified by Ge does not appear to teach:
receiving a request from the first client device located at the predefined geolocation to provide the viral use media filter to the second client device located outside the predefined geolocation
and providing the viral use media filter to the second client device located outside the predefined geolocation
However, Polachek teaches:
receiving a request from the first client device located at the predefined geolocation to provide the viral use media filter to the second client device located outside the predefined geolocation (Polachek – see Fig. 9 - 93, 95, where the user chooses to share the advertisement; and specifies the location or address where the platform should send the ad [0097].)
and providing the viral use media filter to the second client device located outside the predefined geolocation (Polachek - the shared advertisement is then sent by the system to the destination address specified. [0080], Fig. 9, 42.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly, Ge, and Polachek before them, to modify the system of McEvilly and Ge with the teachings of Polachek, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because the sharing functionality facilitates more information gathering about users (Polachek - "The solutions faced by the advertisers provide limited information only.” [0008] “The software also collects the data received in this interaction and processes it and could display it to companies and users" [0014]).
Regarding claim 14, McEvilly modified by Ge does not appear to teach:
executing a programmable function associated with an actionable area in response to detecting a selection of the actionable area from a user of second client device
However, Polachek teaches:
executing a programmable function associated with an actionable area in response to detecting a selection of the actionable area from a user of second client device (Polachek - see Fig. 1, 22, Fig. 5, 22. Fig. 5 illustrates a "pop up" which opens up when the users interact with widget with their cursor...using this pop up the users can enter the address to which they would like to send the advertisement…the shared advertisement is then sent by the system [0079-0080].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of McEvilly, Ge, and Polachek before them, to modify the system of McEvilly and Ge with the teachings of Polachek, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because the sharing functionality facilitates more information gathering about users (Polachek - "The solutions faced by the advertisers provide limited information only.” [0008] “The software also collects the data received in this interaction and processes it and could display it to companies and users" [0014]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANJIT P DORAISWAMY whose telephone number is (571)270-5759. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/RANJIT P DORAISWAMY/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights