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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment application filed May 11, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims, canceled claims 6-7, and added new claims 17-22.
Claims 1-4,8,12-22 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, filed 5/11/26, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made based on 112a, and also based on 103 DeLuca in view of Edwards in further view of Hsiao in further view of Iagnemma.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2 & 3 are blurry and contain illegible text.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 5/11/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is:
claim 1 lines 12-13, which recites:
the first location identifier of a first type and a second location identifier of a second type,
claim 1 lines 14-16, which recites:
transitioning from the first location identifier to the second location identifier based on the first communication session participant moving from the first physical area to the second physical area;
claim 1 lines 26-29, which recites (and which was previously introduced in claim 6 of the amendment dated 12/8/25):
receiving a notification at the third communication session participant prior to the first communication session participant traveling to the third physical location, the notification including information associated with the first communication session participant and the service requested;
newly added claims 17-22, which recite:
the first type…
the second type…
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4,8,12-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. This claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1:
The amended limitations of:
the first location identifier of a first type and a second location identifier of a second type,
transitioning from the first location identifier to the second location identifier based on the first communication session participant moving from the first physical area to the second physical area;
receiving a notification at the third communication session participant prior to the first communication session participant traveling to the third physical location, the notification including information associated with the first communication session participant and the service requested;
are not supported by the specification. There is inadequate support in the specification since: there is no mention of “types” and what that entails, there is no mention of “transitioning… based on…” and what that entails, and there is no mention of “receiving a notification at the third… participant…” and what that entails. The specification is missing detailed embodiments, drawings, flowcharts, or examples that would give antecedent basis and adequate explanation of these amended limitations.
Dependent claims 2-4,8,12-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are thus rejected.
Claims 15,16 are slight variations of claim 1 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding new claims 17-22:
The specification does not repeat the language of these claims or show support for it. The specification is missing detailed embodiments, drawings, flowcharts, or examples that would give antecedent basis and adequate explanation of these new/amended limitations.
Accordingly, the mentioned claim limitations are considered as new matter since the specification does not satisfy the written description requirement, and gives no indication that the inventors had possession of these features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4,8,12-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 9 recites “… a first location identifier…”, and lines 12-13 recite “… a first location identifier of a first type…”. Firstly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of lines 12-13 in the claim. Secondly, it is unclear if this is referring to the same identifier or different.
Dependent claims 2-4,8,12-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are thus rejected.
Claims 15,16 suffer the same deficiency as claim 1 and are rejected based on the same rationale. Furthermore, all dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims and fail to provide a remedy, and are thus rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 17-22 recite multiple location identifiers as being one of: a beacon device, a GPS device, a Bluetooth device, a near field communication device, a facial recognition camera device, and a biometric data recognition device. However, these limitations are originally recited in independent claims 1 and 15. It is unclear if the identifiers of claims 17-22 are referring to the same identifiers of claims 1 & 15, or if they are different identifiers and how they relate to the originally mentioned identifiers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4,8,12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca et al (US Publication 20160078417) in view of Edwards et al (US Patent 10769712) in further view of Hsiao et al (US Patent 11763251).
In reference to claim 1, DeLuca a computer-implemented method for controlling a remote service, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a service request message from a first communication session participant at a first physical location, (see at least ¶ 39 lines 1-12, which teaches a user device/first participant at a location sending a request in a secure communication)
processing a requested service based on the service request message, (see at least ¶ 41 lines 1-5, which teaches a processor of a financial institution processing the user request)
wherein the processing is performed by a second communication session participant at a second physical location, (see at least ¶ 32 lines 4-11 & Figure 1 #101, which teaches the processing performed by a financial institution/second participant part of the communication)
determining a location of the first communication session participant in a first physical area based on communication with a first location identifier, (see at least ¶ 39 lines 12-28, which teaches determining a location of the user device in a first location based on location identifier)
monitoring the location of the first communication session participant as the first communication session participant travels from the first physical location to a third physical location using a plurality of location identifiers that includes at least the first location identifier and a second location identifier, (see at least ¶s 40-42, which teaches monitoring the location of a third participant/mobile ATM device as the ATM device travels to a third location, using location identifiers)
transitioning from the first location identifier to the second location identifier based on the first communication session participant moving from the first physical area to the second physical area; (see at least ¶ 39 lines 17-25, where DeLuca teaches transitioning the location information by moving from one location to another)
determining the location of the first communication session participant in a second physical area based on communication with the second location identifier, transmitting a guide message from the second communication session participant to the first communication session participant that assists the first communication session participant in travelling to the third physical location, (see at least ¶s 40-42, which teaches monitoring the location of a third participant/mobile ATM device as the ATM device travels to a third location, using location identifiers, and transmitting a guide message to the mobile ATM that assists in traveling to the third location) and
transmitting a service execution message to a third communication session participant at the third physical location to fulfil the service requested in the received service request message based on the service request message being received and processed and the first communication session participant traveling from the first physical location to the third physical location, (see at least ¶ 42 lines 5-11 & ¶ 66, which teaches transmitting a service execution message/alert to the mobile ATM to fulfill the service requested by the user request, and the user device traveling from the first location to the third location to meet the mobile ATM at the third location. Once the user arrives at the third location, the user engages in a transaction with the mobile ATM for fulfilling the user service request)
receiving a notification at the third communication session participant prior to the first communication session participant traveling to the third physical location, the notification including information associated with the first communication session participant and the service requested; (see at least ¶ 42 lines 1-12 and ¶ 66, where DeLuca teaches receiving notification at the third location prior to meeting the first participant at the third location, the notification including information from the service request of the first participant)
wherein the first physical location is located remotely from the third physical location and the second physical location, and the second location is located remotely from the third physical location, (see at least ¶ 27 & Figure 1, which teaches the three location are remote from each other)
wherein the first location identifier is one of a beacon device, a GPS device, a Bluetooth device, a near field communication device, a facial recognition camera device, and a biometric data recognition device (see at least ¶ 22 lines 1-15 & ¶ 33, which teaches location identifier from iBeacon, GPS, Bluetooth, or NFC).
As seen above, DeLuca teaches the claim limitations, but in the context of the “third participant” traveling to the third location, and teaches monitoring location of the participant as the participant travels to the third location. DeLuca fails to teach these limitations in the context of the “first participant”. Specifically, DeLuca fails to explicitly teach: monitoring the location of the first communication session participant as the first communication session participant travels from the first physical location to a third physical location using a plurality of location identifiers that includes at least the first location identifier and a second location identifier, determining the location of the first communication session participant in a second physical area based on communication with the second location identifier, transmitting a guide message from the second communication session participant to the first communication session participant that assists the first communication session participant in travelling to the third physical location. DeLuca also fails to explicitly teach: wherein the second location identifier is different than the first location identifier.
However, Edwards teaches customer fulfillment based on location and scheduling information (see Edwards, at least Abstract). Specifically, Edwards teaches a first participant/customer, a second participant/service provider, and a third participant/merchant location; monitoring the location of the customer as the customer travels from a first location to a third location, and using a plurality of location identifiers which include a first and second location (see Edwards, at least column 3 lines 58-67 and column 4 lines 39-45). Edwards also teaches determining the location of the customer in a second physical location based on a second location identifier (see Edwards, at least column 10 lines 33-50 and column 11 lines 48-60). Edwards further teaches sending a guide message/notification from the service provider to the customer that assists the customer in traveling to the merchant location (see Edwards, at least column 25 lines 8-40). Additionally, Edwards teaches that the second location is different than the first location (see Edwards, at least column 13 lines 15-30 and column 24 lines 43-60).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify DeLuca based on the teachings of Edwards for the purpose of improving customer service in managing and fulfilling customer orders and improving customer experience when picking up their order at a business location.
As seen above, DeLuca teaches the claim limitations, but in the context of location information. DeLuca fails to explicitly teach transitioning from the first location identifier to the second location identifier based on the first communication session participant moving from the first physical area to the second physical area. However, Hsiao teaches monitoring customer location using geofencing identifiers (see Hsiao, at least Abstract & Background). Specifically, Hsiao teaches transitioning from a first geofencing identifier to a second geofencing identifier based on the customer/participant moving from a first physical area to a second physical area (see Hsiao, at least column 9 lines 13-43). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify DeLuca based on the teachings of Hsiao for the purpose of accurately monitoring customer location in a customer service environment.
In reference to claim 2, this is taught by DeLuca, see at least ¶s 35-36, where DeLuca teaches initiating the communication session with a login and request.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by DeLuca, see at least ¶ 42 lines 14-18 which teaches determining an estimated time; and ¶ 43 lines 1-9, which teaches transmitting a message to the user about the requested service.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by DeLuca, see at least ¶ 42 lines 1-14, where DeLuca teaches determining proximity information between the user and the mobile ATM.
In reference to claim 8, this is taught by DeLuca, see at least ¶ 39 lines 17-25 & ¶ 44, where DeLuca teaches the user is authenticated with login and financial institution card, and the mobile ATM fulfilling the request.
In reference to claim 12, this is taught by DeLuca, see at least ¶ 35, where DeLuca teaches a user/customer.
In reference to claim 13, this is taught by DeLuca, see at least ¶ 28, where DeLuca teaches a financial institution and ATM.
In reference to claim 14, this is taught by DeLuca, see at least ¶ 38 lines 1-12 & ¶ 46, where DeLuca teaches an ATM, cash dispenser, and interface device.
Claims 15-16 are slight variations of claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected based upon the same rationale.
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca et al (US Publication 20160078417) in view of Edwards et al (US Patent 10769712) in further view of Hsiao et al (US Patent 11763251) in further view of Iagnemma et al (US Publication 20180196416).
In reference to claims 17-22, as shown above, this is taught by DeLuca, see at least ¶ 22 lines 1-15 & ¶ 33, where DeLuca teaches a plurality of location identifier including iBeacon, GPS, Bluetooth, or NFC. DeLuca fails to explicitly teach facial recognition camera device and biometric data recognition device. However, Iagnemma teaches location signalling from a signalling device (see Iagnemma, at least Abstract & Background). Specifically, Iagnemma teaches location identifers including biometric and facial recognition device (see Iagnemma, at least ¶s 60-63). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify DeLuca based on the teachings of Iagnemma for the purpose of accurately monitoring location in a navigation environment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights