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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/2025 and 3/6/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments to application number 18/467,443 filed on 3/6/2026, in which Claims 1-34 are presented for examination. Applicant amends Claims 1, 4-5, 11, 14-15, 18, 21, 24-26, and 29-30 and cancels Claims 2, 6, 12, 16, 22, and 27.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2025 has been received and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 11, filed 3/6/2026, with respect to the non-statutory double patenting rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in the office action of 12/18/2025 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 11, filed 3/6/2026, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner maintains that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked and the claim interpretation set forth in the office action of 12/18/2025 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1filed 3/6/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) and the request for information under 37 CFR 1.105 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant specification, [0037-0038], states that the ESL can measure RSSI information for detected RF devices and further that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that RF communication devices (including ESLs) are capable of measuring RF signals. Applicant further argues that the 37 CFR 1.105 request for information is inappropriate because the Office Action does not provide enough information that the requirements for the criteria of reasonable necessity are met, and cites MPEP 704.11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner’s understanding of an RF communication device, or transceiver, such as an ESL, is that every transceiver is capable of receiving or transmitting data through, or by, detecting a signal strength, however, every transceiver does not necessarily have the capability to measure, or calculate, a signal strength. Further, Examiner’s understanding is that an ESL includes a transceiver that is capable of receiving information from a central data source, a display for sharing data, such as real-time product pricing, and a low power microcontroller. The transceiver of an ESL is capable of receiving and transmitting information using wireless communication, such as RF, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi, however, an ESL is not spectrum analyzer or another type of RF (EMF) meter used for measuring a signal strength. Examiner further understands that a standard ESL system includes a plurality of ESL’s and a central computer used for receiving an ESL fingerprint and performing the signal strength measurements, which helps minimize the power requirements of the ESL. Examiner’s search of the prior art supports this understanding and further, demonstrates a lack of prior art to establish that an ESL, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art, measures signal strength. A search of the prior art reveals that the RF signal strength measurements are done by a separate module, base station, or measurement unit. Further, a search of the prior art reveals that art which does cite a capability of an ESL to measure a signal strength are attributed to Applicant.
Therefore, Examiner’s understanding is that any device used for displaying information, received via a wireless communication, that also has the capability to measure a signal strength would not be a standard ESL, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art. As stated in MPEP 2161(I), “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. [emphasis added].” Additionally, MPEP 2161(II), “[s]ee In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA 1975) ("[A] specification which ‘describes’ does not necessarily also ‘enable’ one skilled in the art to make or use the claimed invention.")” Since a standard ESL, known to one of ordinary skill in the art, cannot measure a signal strength, Applicant must provide support for such a device or support for a new variant of an ESL that can support this claimed feature, which would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the claimed invention. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claims 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) set forth in the office action of 12/18/2025.
Applicant's arguments, see pgs. 2-9 and 11, filed 3/6/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21, 23-26, and 28-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues that Purohit, used to remedy the missing nodes and edges in Graube, discusses directing a user through a store using path-segments and a matching path-cluster, determined by a similarity between the paths, where the direction of travel is unrelated to optimizing an average similarity across all edges included in a route. And therefore Purohit does not discuss the amended language of independent Claims 1, 11, 21, and 26 for determining a route using “a sequence of nodes […] connected by edges that optimize an average similarity measure […] the average similarity measure being calculated from similarity measures between consecutive nodes in the sequence of nodes."
Examiner agrees that Purohit does not discuss the amended language of independent Claims 1, 11, 21, and 26, as stated above. Therefore, in light of the amendments to independent Claims 1, 11, 21, and 26, Examiner withdraws the rejection of Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21, 23-26, and 28-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 set forth in the office action of 12/18/2025. A summary of the allowable subject matter is provided below.
Request for Information Under 37 CFR § 1.105
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application:
Information supporting an electronic shelf label (ESL) capability to measure RF signal strength. Examiner recommends the forms of information, iii-v or vii-viii, bolded below.
The course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 371 (including a reissue application), in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner or other Office employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c), or any assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter, for example:
(i) Commercial databases : The existence of any particularly relevant commercial database known to any of the inventors that could be searched for a particular aspect of the invention.
(ii) Search : Whether a search of the prior art was made, and if so, what was searched.
(iii) Related information : A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign), by any of the inventors, that relates to the claimed invention.
(iv) Information used to draft application : A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used to draft the application.
(v) Information used in invention process : A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used in the invention process, such as by designing around or providing a solution to accomplish an invention result.
(vi) Improvements : Where the claimed invention is an improvement, identification of what is being improved.
(vii) In Use : Identification of any use of the claimed invention known to any of the inventors at the time the application was filed notwithstanding the date of the use.
(viii) Technical information known to applicant . Technical information known to applicant concerning the related art, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter, other factual information pertinent to patentability, or concerning the accuracy of the examiner’s stated interpretation of such items.
This is a request that applicants provide the information identified above especially where emphasis added. If applicants have this information, then applicants are required, under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.56, to disclose the information to the Office.
Applicant is not required or being asked to conduct a search for information beyond applicants own immediate files. If Applicant does not have immediate knowledge of the information requested, then a statement that the information sought is unknown or not readily available to the Applicant will be accepted by the office as a complete reply.
Why the Request for Information is Reasonably Necessary: Applicant/Assignee …. has been in the … business for many years. Although an IDS has been submitted, Applicant likely may possess additional knowledge reasonably pertinent to the examination of this application. If so, please send only relevant and pertinent information to the Examiner. Specifically, please send the Examiner information relating to the ESL measuring RF signal strength.
Information Requested of Applicants: If Applicant possesses any of the information above, Applicant is required to send: publications of pertinent information as well as the dates of the aforementioned information.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 5 and 21 of copending Application No. 17/402,860 (herein '860). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications teach target locations using electronic shelf labels (ESLs). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Current Application, Claim 7. and Claim 17.
wherein the target location is an ESL corresponding to the target product.
‘860 Application, Claim 5.
wherein at least part of the first location information is received from one or more electronic shelf labels (ESLs) in the store.
and ‘860 Application Claim 21.
wherein the processor is further configured with processor-executable instructions such that at least part of the first location information is received from one or more electronic shelf labels (ESLs) in the store.
'860 application Claims 5 and 21 disclose the same ESLs, and corresponding route locations, as current application Claims 7 and 17.
Claims 1, 5, 11, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 17 and 24 of copending Application No. 17/402,860 (herein '860) in view of Purohit et al., SugarTrail: Indoor navigation in retail environments without surveys and maps, DOI 10.1109/SAHCN.2013.6644999 (herein "Purohit"). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Current Application, Claim 1.
A method comprising:
determining a plurality of radio frequency (RF) fingerprints at corresponding locations within a facility, the plurality of RF fingerprints indicating signal strengths from RF devices at the corresponding locations, the RF devices including electronic shelf labels (ESLs);
determining a graph based on the plurality of RF fingerprints;
receiving a current RF fingerprint for a user within the facility;
determining, based on the current RF fingerprint, a current location of the user within the graph;
determining a route to a target product by traversing the graph from the current location to a target location for the target product; and
displaying the route to a user while navigating the facility to the target location.
'860 Application, Claim 1.
A method for supporting in-store product picking performed by a processor of a store management entity server, comprising:
receiving a shopping list of the user mobile device;
receiving first location information indicating a first location in a store of a user mobile device operated by a store picker;
determining an initial route for the store picker to travel through the store for picking one or more products on the shopping list based on the first location; and
sending the initial route to travel through the store for picking the one or more products on the shopping list to the user mobile device.
'860 application Claim 1 discloses receiving locations of products and a user and creating a route between products, where the route is displayed to the user. '860 application Claim 1 does not disclose using signal strengths, creating a graph, or placing a user location on that graph. However, Purohit teaches, using signal strengths [Purohit, pg. 15] and generating maps in facility routing, that includes the user location as the starting point [Purohit, pg. 9]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have to have modified the current application with Purohit to specify using signal strengths and creating a graph. Doing so is a standard step of facility navigation systems and methods [Purohit, pg. 2 and 15].
Similarly, current application, Claim 11 recites a system comprising a memory and a processor configured to perform the operations of method Claim 1. 860' application Claim 17 recites a server comprising a transceiver and a processor to perform the method of Claim 1.
Current Application, Claim 5. and Claim 15.
wherein the route is determined to traverse the graph from the current location to a target location with the fewest number of nodes, where edges connecting the sequence of nodes within the route meet a predetermined similarity requirement.
‘860 Application, Claim 8.
wherein determining the initial route to travel through the store for picking one or more products on the shopping list is based at least in part on one or more picking goals including at least one of minimizing an overall distance traveled within the store by the user mobile device, avoiding other store pickers, avoiding currently congested aisles, or avoiding other customers.
and ‘860 Application Claim. 24.
wherein the processor is further configured with processor-executable instructions to determine the initial route to travel through the store for picking one or more products on the shopping list based at least in part on one or more picking goals including at least one of minimizing an overall distance traveled within the store by the user mobile device, avoiding other store pickers, avoiding currently congested aisles, or avoiding other customers.
'860 application Claims 8 and 24 disclose creating a route to items in a facility using a distance requirement, and further specify the alternative route selection requirements. Omitting the other route selection requirements of ‘860 broadens the scope of the current application. ‘860 application Claims 8 and 24 do not disclose the locations as nodes and the segments as edges. However, Purohit teaches that the locations and segments can be simplified to nodes and edges to create the map and route [Purohit, pg. 9]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the current application with Purohit to use nodes and edges. Doing so is a method used to create a connection matrix and use similarity scores to route a user from any one location to another [Purohit, pg. 9].
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“a computing device configured to perform operations” in Claim 26.
Corresponding structure is found in specification pages 18-19, para [0060], which describes the computing device as a processor and memory with instructions. On pages 25-26, paras [0102-0104], the specification provides examples of the aforementioned devices, such as “general purpose single- or multi-chip processor, a digital signal processor […], […], or other programable logic device […],” “the functions described may be implemented in hardware, digital electronic circuitry, computer software, firmware,” and finally “the functions may be stored on or transmitted over as one or more instructions or code on a computer-readable medium. […] such computer-readable media may include random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), […], or any other medium that may be used to store desired program code in the form of instructions […].” The computing device will be interpreted as a processor and memory.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8 and 18 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. The claims contain 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.
Claims
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 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.
Claim 1 (line 8), Claim 11 (line 13), Claim 21 (lines 9-10), and Claim 26 (line 10) recite “corresponding RF fingerprints.” Claim 1 (line 7), Claim (line 12), Claim 21 (line 9), and Claim 26 (line 9) recite “corresponding RF fingerprints.” Therefore, for clarity, Claim 1 (line 8), Claim 11 (line 13), Claim 21 (lines 9-10), and Claim 26 (line 10) should recite “the corresponding RF fingerprints.”
Claim 1 (lines 16-17), Claim 11 (lines 23-24), Claim 21 (lines 18-19), and Claim 26 (lines 20-21) recites “the sequence of nodes are connected by edges that optimize […] across all edges.” Claim 1 (lines 15-16), Claim 11 (lines 22-23), Claim 21 (lines 17-18), and Claim 26 (lines 18-19) already defines “the route containing a sequence of nodes connected by edges.” All the recited edges are interpreted as the same edges used to form the route. Therefore, for clarity, Claim 1 (lines 16-17), Claim 11 (lines 23-24), Claim 21 (lines 18-19), and Claim 26 (lines 19-20) should recite “the sequence of nodes are connected by the edges that optimize […] across all the edges.”
Similarly, Claim 5 (line 3), Claim 15 (line 3), Claim 25 (line 4), and Claim 30 (line 3) should also recite “the edges connecting the sequence of nodes within the route.”
Claim 8 (lines 1-2) and Claim 18 (lines 1-2) recite "RF fingerprints are measured by each of at least a subset of the ESLs.” There is insufficient explanation as to how the ESLs can measure RF and further, the specification does not provide support. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim reads that this is not a capability of an ESL and for purposes of examination, the claim will be read as “RF fingerprints are measured from a subset of the ESLs,” using a measuring device such as the computing device, as supported by the specification, for example [pg. 11, para 0039] and [pg. 17, para 0054].
Claims 3-4, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 17, 19-20, 23-25, and 28-34 are rejected by dependency on Claims 1, 11, 21, and 26 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent Claims 1, 11, 21, and 26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. And therefore, dependent Claims 3-4, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 17, 19-20, 23-25, and 28-34 would be allowable by dependency on Claims 1, 11, 21, and 26, respectively.
Dependent Claims 5, 8, 15, 18, 25, and 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome all the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and by dependency on their respective base claims if also rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as stated above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1, 11, 21, and 26 would be allowable for disclosing a method, systems, and a medium for determining a plurality of RF fingerprints, wherein the RF fingerprint indicates a signal strength for RF devices including electronic shelf labels (ESLs); determining a graph of the plurality of RF fingerprints, wherein the graph includes nodes connected to form edges based on a similarity between the RF fingerprints; receiving an RF fingerprint of a user and determining the location of the user using the RF fingerprint; determining a route to a product using the graph and the current location; and displaying the route to the user. The referenced prior art and a thorough search of the prior art does not explicitly disclose or teach determining a route wherein the route contains a sequence of nodes connected by edges within the graph, wherein the sequence of nodes optimizes an average similarity across all edges included in the route and wherein the average similarity is calculated using the similarity measures between consecutive nodes in the sequence of nodes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference A, Graube et al., PG Pub US-2022/0051310-A1, discusses a store picker system including a server, mobile devices, and electronic shelf labels (ESLs) for locating a mobile device operated by the store picker and providing a shopping list and route to the store picker, wherein the ESLs and mobile devices have RF fingerprints used for creating a map of the ESLs and locating the mobile device on the map.
Reference B, Bhatnagar et al., PG Pub US-2019/0287311-A1, discusses using multiple displays and a localization method for stitching together map data to create an integrated map and a hologram for display, such as using a head mounted device, wherein the map relies on determining a similarity between fingerprints using a signal strength and a predetermined signal strength threshold.
Reference C, Parviz et al., PG Pub US-2013/0162481-A1, discusses collecting and identifying or determining an association of an RF fingerprint with a user using map data and reference data, including a topology of a location and a speed and orientation of a user, wherein the collecting the RF fingerprints includes automatically collecting a signal source from a user’s mobile device based on tracking a user’s location and a determination that a user is not stationary for a given period of time.
Reference U, Purohit et al., discusses a system for navigating users, such as shoppers, through an indoor environment, such as a store, by identifying nodes, including anchor nodes and user mobile devices, generating edges and path clusters using a similarity calculated using a Hamming or Euclidean distance, and using a similarity between a user’s trajectory and the path clusters to determine a route.
Reference V describes ESL systems, which contain software for configuration and data transmission, or communication, a communication station, and a display, where the ESL itself includes a low power microcontroller to perform the basic functions including communicating and displaying. An ESL can be used to support the software to map products and a user.
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 ERIN MARIE HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5309. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights