Patent Application 14841574 - PROVIDING MOBILE LOYALTY SERVICES IN A

Title: PROVIDING MOBILE LOYALTY SERVICES IN A GEO-FENCING AREA VIA A SINGLE NATIVE MOBILE APPLICATION
Application Information

Invention Title: PROVIDING MOBILE LOYALTY SERVICES IN A GEO-FENCING AREA VIA A SINGLE NATIVE MOBILE APPLICATION
Application Number: 14841574
Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2015-08-31T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2015-08-31T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 705
National Sub-Class: 014580
Examiner Employee Number: 84885
Art Unit: 3698
Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1
Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text



    



DETAILED ACTION 
The present application, filed on 8/31/2015 is being examined under the AIA  first inventor to file provisions. 
		
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection.  Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.  Applicant's submission filed on 5/5/2025 has been entered.

The following is a non-final Office Action on the Merits in response to Applicant’s submission.
Claims 1, 9, 17, 21-23 are amended 
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 19 are cancelled 

Overall, Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17-18, 20-23 are pending and have been considered below.   



Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) 
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.    



Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17-18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application) without significantly more. 

Per Step 1 and Step 2A of the two-step eligibility analysis, independent Claim 1, Claim 9 and Claim 17 and the therefrom dependent claims are directed respectively to a computer implemented method, to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium and to a system. Thus, on its face, each such independent claim and the therefrom dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.  
 However, Claim 1, (which is repeated in Claim 9) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites: receiving a first user authentication to unlock said mobile device; receiving a second user authentication to allow access to said native mobile application; automatically displaying, after said determining said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon and receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device; utilizing said mobile credit account identifier automatically displayed on said display of said mobile device to make a mobile payment at said point of sale. 
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to a sales activities or behaviors, business relationships process, i.e. a process aimed at providing users located in certain areas means for making payments; making payments is part of commercial activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.

This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. (A) In particular, stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, the remaining claim elements of the independent claims are directed to: wirelessly communicatively coupling, a mobile device with at least one beacon of a plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area; determining, based on an invitation received from a point-of-sale beacon of said plurality of beacons, said mobile device is communicating with said a point-of-sale beacon. 
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent receipt, transmission and general computation claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.

(B) Additionally recited claim elements are: the beacons; the geo-fencing area; additional security parameters; the authenticating of the user. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, they do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 

(C) The recited computing elements, i.e. the computer-readable storage medium; the native mobile application are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, like obtaining data, interpreting the obtained data and providing results, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 

Accordingly, these additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because: (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.

Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (A) Stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, the remaining claim elements of the independent claims are directed to: wirelessly communicatively coupling, a mobile device with at least one beacon of a plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area; determining, based on an invitation received from a point-of-sale beacon of said plurality of beacons, said mobile device is communicating with said a point-of-sale beacon. 
When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.  

 (B) Furthermore, the independent claims contain descriptive limitations, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of: the beacons; the geo-fencing area; additional security parameters; the authenticating of the user. However, these elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claimed invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.

(C) After stripping away the abstract idea claim elements, the only remaining elements of the independent claims are the computing elements, i.e. claim elements directed to the computer-readable storage medium; the native mobile application. When considered individually, these additional claim elements serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. They do not constitute “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”. (MPEP 2106.05(a)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of any of these areas.   

Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites: receiving a first user authentication to unlock said mobile device; determine, based on an invitation received from a point-of-sale beacon of said plurality of beacons, said mobile device is communicating with said a point-of-sale beacon of said plurality of beacons; receive a second user authentication to allow access to said native mobile application; automatically display, after said determining said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon and receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device; utilize said mobile credit account identifier automatically displayed on said display of said mobile device to make a mobile payment at said point of sale. The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to a sales activities or behaviors, business relationships process, i.e., a process aimed at providing users located in certain areas means for making payments; making payments is part of commercial activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g., agreements in form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.

This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. (A) In particular, stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, the remaining positively recited elements of the independent claims are directed to: wirelessly communicatively coupling, a mobile device with at least one beacon of a plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area. 
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent receipt. transmission and general computation claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.

(B) The non-positively recited claim elements are:  a biometric sensor, a global positioning system; the beacons; the geo-fencing area; additional security parameters; authenticating the user. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, they do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 

(C) The recited computing elements, i.e., a display; a plurality of beacons is recited at a high-level of generality, i.e., as generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, like obtaining data, interpreting the obtained data and providing results, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 

Accordingly, these additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because: (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.

Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (A) Stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, the remaining positively recited elements of the independent claims are directed to: wirelessly communicatively coupling, a mobile device with at least one beacon of a plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims. 

(B) Furthermore, the independent claims contain descriptive limitations, not positively recited limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of: a biometric sensor, a global positioning system; the beacons; the geo-fencing area; additional security parameters; authenticating the user. However, these elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claimed invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.

(C) After stripping away the abstract idea claim elements, the additional positively recited steps and the non-positively recited claim elements, the only remaining elements of the independent claims are the computing elements, i.e. claim elements directed to a display; a plurality of beacons. When considered individually, these additional claim elements serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. They do not constitute “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”. (MPEP 2106.05(a)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of any of these areas.   

When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)

	Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination.   

Dependent Claim 21 (which is repeated in Claims 22) is directed to additional claim elements, such as to: 
determining a location of said mobile device with respect to said geo-fencing area, said determining said location comprising: obtaining location information for said mobile device from said at least one beacon of said plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area; periodically tracking said location of said mobile device with respect to said geo-fencing area; and periodically updating a location of said mobile device with respect to said geo- fencing area; determining said mobile device has entered into said geo-fencing area; and automatically presenting a mobile marketing, via said native mobile application and on a display of said mobile device when said mobile device enters into said geo-fencing area. 
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to a sales activities or behaviors, business relationships process, i.e., a process aimed at providing users located in certain areas means for making marketing offers, like providing coupons or ads; making marketing offers is part of commercial activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.   

Dependent Claim 23 is directed to additional claim elements, such as to:
determine, based on location information provided by at least one of said plurality of beacons defining said at least one geo-fenced area, a location of the mobile device with respect to the at least one geo-fenced area; periodically track said location of said mobile device with respect to said at least one geo-fenced area; determine said mobile device has entered into said at least one geo-fenced area; and automatically display a mobile marketing on said display when said mobile device enters into said at least one geo-fenced area. 
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to a sales activities or behaviors, business relationships process, i.e., a process aimed at providing users located in certain areas means for making marketing offers, like providing coupons or ads; making marketing offers is part of commercial activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.    

Dependent Claim 3 (which are repeated in Claims 11, 20) and dependent Claim7 (which is repeated in Claims 15, 18) are not directed to any abstract ideas and are not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these non-positively recited claims provide further descriptive limitations of elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of: the mobile marketing, the mobile payment. However, these elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.

Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules, as disclosed in the application specification in fig1 and [0023]-[0032], include among others: mobile device; display; processor; memory; GPS; camera; credit account; payment system; loyalty program; analytics engine, database. 

When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)

In sum, Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17-18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.



Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 
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 difference 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 the invention was made. 

The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i.   Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii.   Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii.   Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv.   Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.

Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17-18, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnard et al (US 2015/0373482), in view of Beck et al (US 2013/0191213), in further view of Alten (US 2016/0063230).  
Regarding Claims 1, 9 – Barnard discloses: A computer-implemented method for providing mobile loyalty services within a geo-fencing area via a native mobile application, said computer-implemented method comprising: 
wirelessly communicatively coupling, a mobile device with a plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area; {see at least fig12, rc411, rc405, rc407, rc143, [0278] communication using wireless transceivers}     
determining, based on an invitation received from a point-of-sale beacon of said plurality of beacons, said mobile device is communicating with said a point-of-sale beacon; {see at least fig3, rc209a, rc302a, rc302b, rc302c, [0071] mobile device within the communication range of beacons; [abstract] he second transceiver being configured to receive beacon signals from a beacon transmitting device within a beacon communications range and further configured to transmit beacon signals to be received by a beacon-enabled device within the beacon communications range. Sensor data and beacon data are used by the interactive applications; fig6, rc667, [0079] wireless beacon antenna (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on point of sale beacon)}     
automatically displaying, after said determining said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon and receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device, {see at least [0144] visit a webpage after authentication of user}, said mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device through said native mobile application when said location of said mobile device, as obtained by said native mobile application from each of said plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area, is proximate to a point of sale; fig2, [0347] account identification, geo-fence, radius, close to point of sale. Barnard fails to expressly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the credit account will become accessible only after the user has been authenticated for access to the respective application – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}

Barnard does not disclose; however, Beck discloses: 
utilizing said mobile credit account identifier automatically displayed on said display of said mobile device to make a mobile payment at said point of sale. {see at least fig15a, fig15b, fig16a, fig16b [0336]-[0337] mobile payments; fig17, fig18 [0344]-[0345] mobile transactions, mobile payments}    

In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Barnard to include the elements of Beck.  One would have been motivated to do so, in order to allow user to make a payment for a purchase.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143).  In the instant case, Barnard evidently discloses determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence.  Beck is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of displaying a credit account identifier in the same or similar context.  As best understood by Examiner, since both determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence, as well as displaying a credit account identifier are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art.  Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Barnard, as well as Beck would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable.  Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Barnard / Beck.

Barnard, Beck does not disclose, however, Alten discloses:
receiving a first user authentication to unlock said mobile device; {see at least [0003] user to enter passcode to unlock the device; [0120] user is authenticated after the device has been unlocked; authenticating the user is a separate action}   
receiving a second user authentication to allow access to said native mobile application; {see at least [0005] For instance, one fingerprint gesture (or sequence) can unlock a device and present a home screen while a different fingerprint gesture (or sequence) can unlock the device and launch one or more specified application programs (also referred to applications or apps), such as an email application. Different fingerprints or fingerprint gestures (or sequences) can be used to unlock different sets of data and/or apps.}  

In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Barnard, Beck to include the elements of Alten. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to protect the credit account even after the device has been unlocked.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143).  In the instant case, Barnard, Beck evidently discloses determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence.  Alten is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of unlocking the mobile device and authenticating the user in the same or similar context.  As best understood by Examiner, since both determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence, as well as unlocking the mobile device and authenticating the user are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art.  Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Barnard, Beck, as well as Alten would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable.  Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Barnard, Beck / Alten.

Regarding Claims 3, 11, 20 – Barnard, Beck, Alten discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 17. Barnard further discloses:  
	wherein said mobile marketing is a coupon displayed on said mobile device. {see at least [0047] location-based messaging, coupons; [0138] coupons; [0191] server sends coupon data; [0198]; [0201] sending coupons; [0222] receiving coupons; [0231] discount coupons}   

Regarding Claims 7, 15, 18 – Barnard, Beck, Alten discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 17. Beck further discloses:  
	wherein said mobile payment is provided by a virtual credit account. {see at least [0043]; fig4, rc146, [0540] credit account. Referring to account as “virtual”, absent any form or structure to distinguish it from any kind of information, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}   

In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Barnard, Beck, Alten to include additional elements of Beck.  One would have been motivated to do so, in order to allow user to make a payment for a purchase.  In the instant case, Barnard, Beck, Alten evidently discloses determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence.  Beck is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of credit account in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.

Regarding Claim 17 – Barnard discloses: A mobile device comprising: a memory, the memory comprising at least one geo-fenced area defining at least a portion of a retail store, and a native mobile application; a display; a biometric sensor; and one or more processors operating on the mobile device, said native mobile application to cause the one or more processors operating on the mobile device to: {see at least fig9, rc903, [0100]-[0103]}  
wirelessly communicatively coupling, a mobile device with a plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area; {see at least fig12, rc411, rc405, rc407, rc143, [0278] communication using wireless transceivers}    
determine, based on an invitation received from a point-of-sale beacon of said plurality of beacons, said mobile device is communicating with said a point-of-sale beacon of said plurality of beacons; {see at least fig3, rc209a, rc302a, rc302b, rc302c, [0071] mobile device within the communication range of beacons; [abstract] he second transceiver being configured to receive beacon signals from a beacon transmitting device within a beacon communications range and further configured to transmit beacon signals to be received by a beacon-enabled device within the beacon communications range. Sensor data and beacon data are used by the interactive applications.}  
automatically display, after said determining said mobile device is communicating with said point of sale beacon and receiving said second user authentication to allow said access to said native mobile application, a mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device, {see at least [0144] visit a webpage after authentication of user}, said mobile credit account identifier on said display of said mobile device through said native mobile application when said location of said mobile device, as obtained by said native mobile application from each of said plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area, is proximate to a point of sale; fig2, [0347] account identification, geo-fence, radius, close to point of sale. Barnard fails to expressly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the credit account will become accessible only after the user has been authenticated for access to the respective application – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01} 

Barnard does not disclose; however, Beck discloses:	
utilize said mobile credit account identifier automatically displayed on said display of said mobile device to make a mobile payment at said point of sale. {see at least fig15a, fig15b, fig16a, fig16b [0336]-[0337] mobile payments; fig17, fig18 [0344]-[0345] mobile transactions, mobile payments} 

In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Barnard to include the elements of Beck.  One would have been motivated to do so, in order to allow user to make a payment for a purchase.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143).  In the instant case, Barnard evidently discloses determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence.  Beck is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of displaying a credit account identifier in the same or similar context.  As best understood by Examiner, since both determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence, as well as displaying a credit account identifier are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art.  Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Barnard, as well as Beck would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable.  Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Barnard / Beck. 

Barnard, Beck does not disclose, however, Alten discloses:
receiving a first user authentication to unlock said mobile device; {see at least [0003] user to enter passcode to unlock the device; [0120] user is authenticated after the device has been unlocked; authenticating the user is a separate action}   
receiving a second user authentication to allow access to said native mobile application; {see at least [0005] For instance, one fingerprint gesture (or sequence) can unlock a device and present a home screen while a different fingerprint gesture (or sequence) can unlock the device and launch one or more specified application programs (also referred to applications or apps), such as an email application. Different fingerprints or fingerprint gestures (or sequences) can be used to unlock different sets of data and/or apps.}  

In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Barnard, Beck to include the elements of Alten.  One would have been motivated to do so, in order to protect the credit account even after the device has been unlocked.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143).  In the instant case, Barnard, Beck evidently discloses determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence.  Alten is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of unlocking the mobile device and authenticating the user in the same or similar context.  As best understood by Examiner, since both determining the position of a mobile device within a geo-fence, as well as unlocking the mobile device and authenticating the user are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art.  Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Barnard, Beck, as well as Alten would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable.  Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Barnard, Beck / Alten.  

Regarding Claims 21, 22 – Barnard, Beck, Alten discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9. Barnard further discloses:  
	determining a location of said mobile device with respect to said geo-fencing area, {see at least [0102]-[0103] determining mobile device location}     
said determining said location comprising: 
obtaining location information for said mobile device from at least one of said plurality of beacons defining said geo-fencing area; {see at least [0102]-[0103] determining mobile device location; [0095] defining a geo-fence; [0096] mobile device location; as further disclosed at fig14, [0142]-[0150] disclose an algorithm for periodically scanning for beacon signals to determine the position of the tracked objects (BSCLAN stays for Beacon, Sensor and Controller Local Area Network)} 
periodically tracking said location of said mobile device with respect to said geo-fencing area; and {see at least fig14, [0142]-[0149] tracking mobile device, scanning periodically; as further disclosed at fig14, [0142]-[0150] disclose an algorithm for periodically scanning for beacon signals to determine the position of the tracked objects (BSCLAN stays for Beacon, Sensor and Controller Local Area Network)} 
periodically updating a location of said mobile device with respect to said geo- fencing area; {see at least fig14, [0142]-[0149] tracking mobile device, scanning periodically; as further disclosed at fig14, [0142]-[0150] disclose an algorithm for periodically scanning for beacon signals to determine the position of the tracked objects (BSCLAN stays for Beacon, Sensor and Controller Local Area Network)} 
determining said mobile device has entered into said geo-fencing area; and {see at least fig9, rc903, rc909b, [0098]-[0103]; fig10, [0107]-[0110] entering the geo-fence; [0168], [0236]} 
automatically presenting a mobile marketing, via said native mobile application and on a display of said mobile device when said mobile device enters into said geo-fencing area. {see at least fig10, rc1001, [0107] computer device enters the geo-fence area; as further disclosed at [0231] The advertisements may be linked to beacon signals received by end users so that they may be location-based; for example, an end user may receive a discount coupon from a vendor when they may be within a certain distance of one of the vendor's locations (“certain distance” reads on the mobile device being in the geofenced area); [0047] location-based messaging, such as coupons; fig13, rc1309, rc1371, [0138] translates beacon ID to messages (reads on being within the geofenced area); [0191] The application server may send coupons data, etc. to the mobile device 109 based on its location; [0231] end user may receive a discount coupon from a vendor when they may be within a certain distance of one of the vendor's locations; [0270] transmitting beacon signals that may be used by the receiving devices to receive other messages (e.g., coupons, control values or settings, etc., from a service platform computing device, etc.), scanning for beacon signals transmitted by other devices within the lighting infrastructure. **Examiner Note – The claim element is disclosed also by Beck at fig20, rc1102, rc1104, rc1105, rc1106, rc1107 [0349] user enters the proximity of a merchant location, …, offer is determined based on position of a user in the proximity of a merchant physical location ([0347] a space reached by RF signals from radio devices the merchant location or an arbitrary space around the merchant location, for example defined as a "geo-fence"); fig22, rc1201, rc1203, rc1204, [0360] user enters proximity of a merchant location, [0361] which merchants may make offers to user by determining in which merchant location proximities the user is; [0316] predetermined region containing the merchant locations, i.e. geo-fencing**}    

Regarding Claims 23 – Barnard, Beck, Alten discloses the limitations of Claims 17. Barnard further discloses:  
	determine, based on location information provided by at least one of said plurality of beacons defining said at least one geo-fenced area, a location of the mobile device with respect to the at least one geo-fenced area; {see at least [0102]-[0103] determining mobile device location; [0095] defining a geo-fence; [0096] mobile device location}    
periodically track said location of said mobile device with respect to said at least one geo- fenced area; {see at least [0102]-[0103] determining mobile device location; [0095] defining a geo-fence; [0096] mobile device location; as further disclosed at fig14, [0142]-[0150] disclose an algorithm for periodically scanning for beacon signals to determine the position of the tracked objects (BSCLAN stays for Beacon, Sensor and Controller Local Area Network)}     
determine said mobile device has entered into said at least one geo-fenced area; and {see at least [0102]-[0103] determining mobile device location; [0095] defining a geo-fence; [0096] mobile device location}     
automatically display a mobile marketing on said display when said mobile device enters into said at least one geo-fenced area. {see at least [0049]-[0050] advertising available resources; [0055] advertisement packet; [0231]-[0234]; [0269]}       



The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:  
1	US 20110171939 A1	2011-07-14	17	Deliwala; Manish K. et al.	SYSTEM, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PROVIDING CUSTOMER SERVICE ON A MOBILE DEVICE - A system, method, and computer program product for providing customer services on a mobile device can provide a user-interface on a mobile device to display one or more customer service options, store state information of the customer's interaction with the user-interface, and provide a user-interface element that provides the customer an option to contact a customer service agent. In response to the customer's exercising the option to contact the customer service agent, the stored state information is sent to the customer service agent.
1	US 20150373482 A1	2015-12-24	56	Barnard; Chris et al.	APPLICATION FRAMEWORK FOR INTERACTIVE WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS - In various example embodiments, a system and method for a light sensor network that provides an application framework for interactive applications that use location-based information are presented. In example embodiments, the light sensor network plurality a plurality of lighting nodes and a plurality of sensor controller nodes (SCNs) positioned within a wireless communications range of one or more of the plurality of LNs. A LN within the light sensor network plurality a communication interface having a first transceiver and a second transceiver. The first transceiver being configured to exchange communication signals to and from a service platform over a wide area network (WAN) via a lighting gateway node. The second transceiver being configured to receive beacon signals from a beacon transmitting device within a beacon communications range and further configured to transmit beacon signals to be received by a beacon-enabled device within the beacon communications range. Sensor data and beacon data are used by the interactive applications.
1	US 20150324877 A1	2015-11-12	21	Shaw; Jeffrey Barrett et al.	ECOMMERCE SYSTEM FOR MARKETING MIXED-LOTS OF DISTRESSED INVENTORY - An ecommerce system for marketing mixed lots of distressed inventory, as embodied in various systems, methods, and non-transitory computer-readable storage media, is provided. The system may generate and communicate offers for mixed lots of distressed inventory. Individual buyers may join together to form buying teams that may collectively purchase a mixed lot. The system may charge buyers and distribute portions of the purchased lot, some of which may be upgraded items, to individual buyers based on respective levels of demand indicated by each buyer. The system may also plurality a network-based inventory tracking function that permits buyers to store electronic representations or records of purchased items in a remote storage location. The system may then aggregate the purchased items for shipping at a later time. 
1	US 20160292410 A1	2016-10-06	13	Alten; Hao et al.	Authenticating User and Launching an Application on a Single Intentional User Gesture - Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for combining authentication and application shortcut. An example method including detecting, by a device having a touchscreen, a gesture by a user on the touchscreen while the device is in a sleep mode; classifying the gesture, by the device, as an intentional gesture or an accidental gesture; maintaining the device in the sleep mode if the gesture is classified as an accidental gesture; responsive to determining, by the device, that the gesture matches one or more confirmed gestures stored on the device based at least in part on a set of predefined criteria, if the gesture is classified as an intentional gesture: recognizing the user as authenticated; and without requiring additional user input, selecting an application, from a plurality of different applications, according to the gesture and launching the application on the device. 
1	US 20150161613 A1	2015-06-11	14	ZHANG; YUMIAO	METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AUTHENTICATIONS AND ONLINE TRANSACTIONS - A method and system for online authentication and payment are disclosed. The method including collecting facial data of a user in real time, the user being associated with a user account; comparing the collected facial data with facial data associated with the user account; and receiving data related to a purchase order, the purchase order data including a payment account number and a payment amount. The method further including sending the purchase order data to a payment module and making, by the payment module, a payment based on the purchase order data. The method and system consistent with the present disclosure may authenticate a user before conducting an online transaction and improve the user experience in conducting online transactions.
1	US 9269083 B1	2016-02-23	22	Jarajapu; Ravindra et al.	Mobile device payment - A method including receiving, from a mobile device, a payment method and a payment amount. The method also can including validating the payment amount. The method further can including generating a gift card for the payment amount. The gift card can including a gift card identifier. The method additionally can include sending the gift card identifier to the mobile device. The method further can including displaying the gift card identifier on the mobile device. Other embodiments are provided.
1	US 9916620 B2	2018-03-13	49	Del Vecchio; Orin et al.  Systems and methods for providing balance notifications in an augmented reality environment - The disclosed embodiments including methods and systems for providing account status notifications. The disclosed embodiments including, for example, a device for providing account status notifications including a memory storing software instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the software instructions to perform operations. In one aspect, the operations may including receiving account status notification information for a first account associated with a user. The account status notification information may be generated based on one or more notification rules and account information associated with the first account. The operations may also including generating, based on the received account status notification information, a first account status indicator that provides a status of a first account parameter associated with the first account that is presented, via a device component and within a field-of-view of the user, without a user request to receive the status of the first account parameter. 



Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.  

Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention. 

Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.

With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:  
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea. 
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more. 

Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more. 

Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. 

The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo). 
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.

More specific: 
Applicant submits “Here, similar to DDR Holdings, the Claim includes the additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modify conventional mobile device/beacon interactions to dynamically produce automated activities when the mobile device is within range of a specifically assigned beacon which differ from the conventional interactions of one of ordinary skill taking part in a sales activity/behavior.” Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.  
It is not proper practice to go and find a particular Example from the Office published material and use the specific arguments from that Example to determine eligibility of a particular claimed invention, unless the particular claimed invention uniquely matches (i.e. a case that involves identical or similar facts or similar legal issues) the subject matter claimed in that particular Example, which in the instant situation it does not. The Office periodically publishes Examples with detailed analyses only to serve as rational and argumentation models to determine eligibility. Each application has to be considered on its own merits. Examples provided by the Office are nothing more than the name suggests: examples. 
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained. 

Applicant submits “Instead, the additional elements (which are not part of the abstract idea of commercial interactions) provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer (e.g., customer's mobile device) including the functionality of presenting the mobile credit account identifier on the display when the mobile device is within range of the "point of sale beacon" without requiring the customer to perform the normal steps such as finding the mobile credit account identifier on the mobile device, determining the correct mobile credit account identifier, selecting the mobile credit account identifier, and finally displaying the mobile credit account identifier.” Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.  
MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Providing mobile loyalty services is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained. 

Applicant submits “That is, by including the additional features that improve the functioning of the computer, the Claim elements qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.” Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.  
See response immediately above. 
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained. 

Applicant submits “Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits the Step 2B analysis provided herein results in the answer being Yes. The additional elements in the claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.” Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.  
See responses here above. 
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained. 

It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained. 


With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant argues on eleven pages that the prior art of record (i.e., Barnard) does not disclose the mobile device communicating with “a point of sale beacon.” 
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.  
The claims are directed to making payments for e-commerce transactions. The payment, although essential, is only one of the commercial transaction steps. 
First, the claims are not directed to communicating with “a point of sale beacon.” The claims only recite “a point of sale beacon” to be used as one of the tools to perform an e-commerce operation, which requires wireless communication. Specifically, Barnard discloses at fig6, rc667, [0079] a beacon antenna, which is used for ecommerce communication between all involved parties, which includes the customer and the merchant, specifically the merchant’s point of sale. 
Therefore, it is concluded that Barnard implicitly discloses the functionality of “a point of sale beacon” used to perform an ecommerce operation.
Second, Beck discloses – utilize said mobile credit account identifier automatically displayed on said display of said mobile device to make a mobile payment at said point of sale. {see at least fig15a, fig15b, fig16a, fig16b [0336]-[0337] mobile payments; fig17, fig18 [0344]-[0345] mobile transactions, mobile payments; (mobile implicitly discloses a beacon or an antenna)} 
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.


The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.


Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome. 




Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948.  The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.     
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant.  Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant: 
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only. 
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.

Any response to this action should be mailed to: 
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450 
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

or faxed to 571-273-8300 




/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698