Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/434,641

SHOPPING STORE PLANNING AND OPERATIONS USING LARGE-SCALE DISTRIBUTED RADIO INFRASTRUCTURE

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Feb 06, 2024
Examiner
CIVAN, ETHAN D
Art Unit
3688
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Agile Displays LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
463 granted / 682 resolved
+15.9% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
705
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
§112
11.5%
-28.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 682 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 17. Claims 1-20 are now pending. 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. Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0051310 (hereinafter “Graube”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0343342 A1 (hereinafter “Kovacs”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0365669 A1 (hereinafter “Rossl”). With respect to claim 1, Graube discloses “A method, comprising”: Graube, abstract; “receiving, by one or more electronic shelf labels (ESLs) in a shopping store, radio signals transmitted from a first device associated with a first customer in the shopping store over a period of time …”; Graube ¶¶ 0075, 0076 (each electronic shelf label transmits a tone signal in response to receiving an RF signal from user device, allowing the store server to determine the location of the user mobile device); and “determining a location of the first customer based on locations of the one or more ESLs in the shopping store that received the radio signals from the first device”. Graube ¶ 0076 (each electronic shelf label transmits a tone signal, allowing the store server to determine the location of the user mobile device). Graube does not explicitly disclose a heatmap. Kovacs discloses “generating a heatmap that includes the location of the first customer over the period of time”. Kovacs ¶ 0052 (heatmap of customer locations is overlaid over asset map). Graube and Kovacs both relate to product information at retail locations. Graube, abstract; Kovacs, abstract. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the heatmap feature as taught by Kovacs in the method of Graube with the motivation of obtaining improved inventory, route of travel, and point of sale information for analysis to further retail objectives. Kovacs ¶¶ 0002-0004. Kovacs and Graube do not explicitly disclose a mutli-modal timed-slot architecture. Rossl discloses “wherein the one or more ESLs comprise a multi-modal timed-slot architecture”. Rossl ¶¶ 0024, 0025 (electronic shelf labels have sleep and active modes). Graube, Kovacs, and Rossl all relate to product information at retail locations. Graube, abstract; Kovacs, abstract; Rossl, abstract. It would have been obvious to include the mutli-modal timed-slot architecture as taught by Rossl in the method of Graube/Kovacs with the motivation of saving energy. See Rossl ¶¶ 0024, 0025. With respect to claims 2, 10, and 18, Graube discloses “further comprising displaying, by the one or more ESLs in the shopping store, shopping information to the first customer based on the determined location of the first customer”. Graube ¶¶ 0061, 0089, 0307 (product information and directions are displayed on ESLs for customer). With respect to claims 3, 11, and 19, Graube discloses “further comprising sending shopping information to the first device associated with the first customer based on the determined location of the customer”. Graube ¶ 0096 (product information and directions can be sent to user’s mobile device). With respect to claims 4, 12, and 20, Kovacs discloses “wherein the heatmap includes one or more heat spots representing different movements of the first customer”. Kovacs ¶ 0052 (heatmap reveals flow patterns, shopper pauses at particular locations, and shopper interactions with items and displays). With respect to claims 5 and 13, Kovacs discloses “wherein the one or more heat spots are represented using different colors, the different colors associated with different characteristics of the different movements”. Kovacs ¶¶ 0074, 0075 (different colors can be used to represent amount of time spent by a shopper at particular locations or number of shoppers at particular locations). With respect to claims 6 and 14, Kovacs discloses “wherein the different movements include dwelling time of the first customer at a given position”. Kovacs ¶ 0052 (heatmap reveals flow patterns, shopper pauses at particular locations, and shopper interactions with items and displays). With respect to claims 7 and 15, Graube discloses “further comprising: receiving by the one or more ESLs in the shopping store, radio signals transmitted from a second device associated with a second customer in the shopping store over the period of time”; Graube ¶¶ 0076, 0079 (radio signals are transmitted from devices associated with multiple customers); and “determining a location of the second customer based on locations of the ESLs in the shopping store that received the radio signals from the second device”. Kovacs ¶¶ 0076, 0079 (location of each customer over time is determined). Kovacs discloses “generating the heatmap that includes the location of the first customer and the second customer over the period of time”. Kovacs ¶¶ 0004-0006, 0028-0031, 0052, 0074, 0075 (heatmap showing locations of multiple customers over time is generated). With respect to claim 9, Graube discloses “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a system to perform operations, the operations comprising”: Graube ¶¶ 0337, 0338. Claim 9 is otherwise rejected on the same basis as claim 1. With respect to claim 17, Graube discloses “A system comprising”: Graube, abstract; “a plurality of electronic shelf labels (ESLs), located in a shopping store, configured to receive radio signals from a first device associated with a first customer in the shopping store over a period of time ….”; Graube ¶¶ 0075 0076 (each electronic shelf label transmits a tone signal in response to receiving an RF signal from the user device, allowing the store server to determine the location of the user mobile device); and “one or more processors configured to”: Graube ¶¶ 0337, 0338; “determine a location of the first customer based on locations of the plurality of ESLs in the shopping store that received the radio signal from the first device”. Graube ¶¶ 0075, 0076 (each electronic shelf label transmits a tone signal in response to receiving an RF signal from the user device, allowing the store server to determine the location of the user mobile device). Kovacs discloses “generate a heatmap that includes the location of the first customer over the period of time”. Kovacs ¶ 0052 (heatmap of customer locations is overlaid over asset map). Rossl discloses “wherein the one or more ESLs comprise a multi-modal timed-slot architecture”. Rossl ¶¶ 0024, 0025. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8 and 16 are allowable over the prior art of record, as previously noted. Claims 8 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Remarks Applicant argues that Graube does not disclose receiving radio signals from a first device because Graube discloses that the ESLs emit tone signals. Amendment, pages 7-8. However, while Graube does disclose that the ESLs emit tone signals, they do so in response to receiving RF signals, such as WiFi or BLE signals. Graube ¶¶ 0075, 0076. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The § 112 rejection is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments to the claims. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN D CIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-6:30. 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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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. ETHAN D. CIVAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3688 /ETHAN D CIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 06, 2024
Application Filed
May 02, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 08, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 19, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 24, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Apr 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 11, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602718
SUBSCRIBER-BASED REAL-TIME SERVICE PROVIDER OFFERINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591922
SYSTEM, METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR DETERMINING COMMODITY OR SERVICE SUITABLE FOR USER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579569
AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF PERSONALIZED COLLECTION OF ITEMS AROUND A THEME AT AN ONLINE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572972
STORE SYSTEM APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572973
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-BASED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING PERSONALIZED SKIN PRODUCT RECOMMENDATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+29.8%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 682 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month