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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a spatial location module configured to…” in claim 1 (Claim 3 and paragraphs [0055]-[0056].).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,481,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are merely broader than the patented claims and thus, anticipated by the patented claims.
Below is a comparison example between present claim 10 and patented claim 9:
Present claim 10
Patented claim 9
A method for facilitating user interaction with a kiosk, the method comprising:
A method for facilitating user interaction with a kiosk, the method comprising:
receiving, from a kiosk, first spatial data including a location of the kiosk;
receiving, from a kiosk, first spatial data including a location of the kiosk;
receiving, from one or more short-range wireless devices, second spatial data including a location of one or more users;
receiving, from one or more short-range wireless devices, second spatial data including a location of one or more other kiosks and one or more users;
determining, using a first machine learning system, an optimal location of the kiosk based on the location of the kiosk and the location of the one or more users;
detecting, based on the second spatial data, whether at least one user among the one or more users is within a pre-determined distance of the kiosk; and
detecting, using a second machine learning system, whether at least one user among the one or more users is within a pre-determined distance of the kiosk; and
upon determining that at least one user is within a pre-determined distance of the kiosk, initiating an interaction between the kiosk and the at least one user.
upon determining that at least one user is within a pre-determined distance of the kiosk, initiating an interaction between the kiosk and the at least one user.
As shown above, besides wording, there are two main differences between the claims. The first difference is that patented claim 9 recites “determining, using a first machine learning system, an optimal location of the kiosk based on the location of the kiosk and the location of the one or more users” whereas present claim 10 fails to recited this feature, meaning present claim 9 is merely broader in this respect. The second difference is that patented claim 9 recites “using a second machine learning system” whereas present claim 10 recites “based on the second spatial data.” However, in the context of the embodiment regarding patented claim 9, the claimed second machine learning system is trained based on second spatial data from one or more short-range wireless devices (See column 20, lines 27-42). Therefore, present claim 10 is merely a broader version of patented claim 9, and thus, is anticipated by patented claim 9.
Present claim 1 is similarly rejected as above over patented claims 1 and 17.
Present claim 2 is similarly rejected over patented claim 2.
Present claim 3 is similarly rejected over patented claim 3.
Present claim 4 is similarly rejected over patented claims 1 and 4.
Present claim 5 is similarly rejected over patented claim 13.
Present claim 6 is similarly rejected over patented claim 18.
Present claim 7 is similarly rejected over patented claim 16.
Present claim 8 is similarly rejected over patented claim 8.
Present claim 9 is similarly rejected over patented claim 9.
Present claim 11 is similarly rejected over patented claim 10.
Present claim 12 is similarly rejected over patented claim 12.
Present claim 13 is similarly rejected over patented claim 13.
Present claim 14 is similarly rejected over patented claim 18.
Present claim 15 is similarly rejected over patented claim 19.
Present claim 16 is similarly rejected over patented claims 1 and 17.
Present claim 17 is similarly rejected over patented claim 1.
Present claim 18 is similarly rejected over patented claim 1.
Present claim 19 is similarly rejected over patented claim 13.
Present claim 20 is similarly rejected over patented claim 14.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim et al. (US 2023/0195219) in view of Pillai et al. (US 2016/0092034).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a system (Figure 1), comprising:
one or more integrated display devices (Figure 1, 130 and paragraph [0061].);
one or more interactive elements (Figure 1, 160A-160C and paragraph [0061].); and
a spatial location module (Paragraphs [0076], [0081]-[0082] and [0110].) configured to:
receive first spatial data including a location of the system (Paragraphs [0076], [0081]-[0082] and [0110].);
receive second spatial data including a location of one or more users (Paragraph [0076], [0079] and [0102]-[0103].);
detect whether at least one user among the one or more users is within a pre-determined distance of the system (Figure 7 and paragraphs [0123]-[0128].); and
upon determining that at least one user is within a pre-determined distance of the system, initiate an interaction between the system and the at least one user (Figures 12-13, the input pad is protruded and angled and information is displayed, which is initialing an interaction as claimed.).
Kim et al. fail to teach of receiving the second spatial data from one or more short-range wireless devices.
Pillai et al. discloses of receiving second spatial data including a location of one or more user’s from one or more short-range wireless devices (Figure 6B and paragraph [0061], LPWC component 320 and paragraph [0036], the user’s device is used to detect the user’s location.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Pillai et al. in the method taught by Kim et al. such that the user’s location is determined using the user’s device and then used for the proximity detection. The motivation to combine would have been in order to more accurately and easily detect the user’s location when more than one user is present.
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising a user detection module configured to detect a user of the one or more users approaching the system (Paragraph [0076], [0079] and [0102]-[0103].), wherein the user detection module comprises:
at least one of a camera sensor, a proximity sensor, a gas sensor, or a global positioning receiver (Kim et al.: Paragraph [0076]: camera); and
a first trained machine learning model (Kim et al.: Paragraphs [0102]-[0103].).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the spatial location module comprises:
one or more of a camera sensor, or a short-range wireless sensor (Kim et al.: Paragraph [0076]: camera); and
a second trained machine learning model (Kim et al.: Paragraph [0110].).
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising a content personalization engine configured to determine content to be displayed on the one or more integrated display devices (Pillai et al.: Paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and Figure 11 and paragraph [0109].), wherein the content personalization engine comprises a third trained machine learning model (Pillai et al.: Paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and Figure 11 and paragraph [0109].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the content personalization engine taught Pillai et al. in the system taught by Kim et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to facilitate increased engagement with the kiosk (See paragraphs [0017]-[0018] of Pillai et al.).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein initiating the interaction between the system and the at least one user includes displaying a prompt on at least one of the one or more integrated display devices of the system, the prompt instructing the at least one user to provide first user information (Kim et al.: Figure 13A or 13B, “make payment” would require the user to provide first user information.).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the interaction between the system and the at least one user includes receiving first user information from the at least one user (Kim et al.: Figure 13A or 13B, “make payment” would require the user to provide first user information.).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the system of claim 6, wherein the spatial location module is further configured to:
generate, based on the first user information received from the at least one user, content on the one or more integrated display devices (Pillai et al.: Paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and Figure 11 and paragraph [0109], personalized content may be generated based on transaction history, i.e. previous purchases, where the first user information would have been used in the combination.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the content personalization engine taught Pillai et al. in the system taught by Kim et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to facilitate increased engagement with the kiosk (See paragraphs [0017]-[0018] of Pillai et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein determining that at least one user is within a pre-determined distance of the system comprises detecting a user interaction with the one or more interactive elements (In the combination, since a short-range device is used, the user interaction would be when the user is within a pre-determined distance of the one or more interactive elements since the interactive elements as located on the kiosk and the kiosk is used for determining the a pre-determined distance of the system.).
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. disclose a method for facilitating user interaction with a kiosk, the method comprising:
receiving, from a kiosk, first spatial data including a location of the kiosk (Paragraphs [0076], [0081]-[0082] and [0110].);
receiving second spatial data including a location of one or more users (Paragraph [0076], [0079] and [0102]-[0103].);
detecting whether at least one user among the one or more users is within a pre-determined distance of the kiosk (Figure 7 and paragraphs [0123]-[0128].); and
upon determining that at least one user is within a pre-determined distance of the kiosk, initiating an interaction between the kiosk and the at least one user (Figures 12-13, the input pad is protruded and angled and information is displayed, which is initialing an interaction as claimed.).
Kim et al. fail to teach of receiving the second spatial data from one or more short-range wireless devices.
Pillai et al. discloses of receiving second spatial data from one or more short-range wireless devices (Figure 6B and paragraph [0061], LPWC component 320 and paragraph [0036], the user’s device is used to detect the user’s location.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Pillai et al. in the method taught by Kim et al. such that the user’s location is determined using the user’s device and then used for the proximity detection. The motivation to combine would have been in order to more accurately and easily detect the user’s location when more than one user is present.
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the kiosk includes a short-range wireless device (Pillai et al.: Paragraph [0036]) and a camera (Kim et al.: Paragraph [0076]), and the first spatial data includes data received from the short-range wireless device (Pillai et al.: Paragraph [0036]) and the camera (Kim et al.: Paragraphs [0076], [0081]-[0082] and [0110].).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the kiosk includes a motion detection sensor (Kim et al.: Paragraphs [0122]-[0125]: distance measuring sensor) and a camera (Kim et al.: Paragraph [0076].), and the second spatial data includes data received from the motion detection sensor and the camera (Kim et al.: Paragraphs [0076] and [0122]-[0125]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the method of claim 10, wherein initiating the interaction between the kiosk and the at least one user includes displaying a prompt on a display of the kiosk, the prompt instructing the at least one user to provide first user information (Kim et al.: Figure 13A or 13B, “make payment” would require the user to provide first user information.).
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the interaction between the kiosk and the at least one user includes receiving first user information from the at least one user (Kim et al.: Figure 13A or 13B, “make payment” would require receiving first user information.).
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the method of claim 14, wherein the first user information is received via a near field communication (NFC) reader, a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, an optical image reader, or an integrated display device (Kim et al.: Figures 13A or 13B, information is through interaction with the display [integrated display device].).
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. disclose a method for facilitating user interaction with a kiosk, the method comprising:
receiving, from a kiosk, first spatial data including a location of the kiosk (Paragraphs [0076], [0081]-[0082] and [0110].);
receiving second spatial data including a location of a user (Paragraph [0076], [0079] and [0102]-[0103].); and
receiving, from a user device, user information associated with the user (Kim et al.: Figure 13A or 13B, “make payment” would require receiving first user information using the user device 1230.).
Kim et al. fail to teach:
receiving the second spatial data from one or more short-range wireless devices; and
generating, on a display of the kiosk, personalized content for an interaction with the user based on the user information received from the user device.
Pillai et al. discloses of receiving second spatial data including a location of a user from one or more short-range wireless devices (Figure 6B and paragraph [0061], LPWC component 320 and paragraph [0036], the user’s device is used to detect the user’s location, which requires also the location of the kiosk.); and
generating, on a display of the kiosk, personalized content for an interaction with the user based on the user information received from the user device (Paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and Figure 11 and paragraph [0109].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the content personalization engine and the one or more short-range wireless devices teachings taught by Pillai et al. in the method taught by Kim et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to facilitate increased engagement with the kiosk (See paragraphs [0017]-[0018] of Pillai et al.) and to more accurately and easily detect the user’s location when more than one user is present.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 13.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 14.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim et al. (US 2023/0195219) in view of Pillai et al. (US 2016/0092034) and further in view of Butler et al. (US 2024/0112532).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. and Pillai et al. disclose the system of claim 1.
Kim et al. and Pillai et al. fail to teach wherein the one or more interactive elements includes one or more of a near field communication (NFC) reader, a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, or a scannable optical image marker.
Butler et al. disclose a system wherein one or more interactive elements includes one or more of a near field communication (NFC) reader, a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, or a scannable optical image marker (Paragraph [0158]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the near field communication (NFC) reader or a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader as taught by Butler et al. in the system taught by the combination of Kim et al. and Pillai et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to facilitate contactless payment which allows for a user to more easily pay for services.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
18 June 2026
Prosecution Insights