DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to communication(s) filed on 03/30/2026.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2026 and 04/17/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 4-6 and 17 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 03/30/2026.
As set forth on record previously, the prior Office action expressly interpreted the following limitations as:
Claim 4, the limitation “cause multiple beacon devices including the beacon device to transmit…” was interpreted as “cause one or more beacon devices of a plurality of beacon devices to transmit…” based upon Paragraph 86 of the specification, which discloses “in one example, the system can cause one or more beacon devices to transmit beacon signals at regular intervals”. Applicant’s amendment to the limitation conforms to that interpretation.
However, Applicant has additionally amended the limitation “determine a micro-location of the wireless mobile device based on the beacon signals received from the multiple beacon devices” to “determine a micro-location of the wireless mobile device based on the beacon signals received from the one or more beacon devices of the plurality of beacon devices”. This latter amendment was not expressly construed in the prior Office action. The amended limitation has changed the numerical scope of the beacon devices whose beacon signals can be used for determining the micro-location of the wireless mobile device, wherein the proximity to the wireless mobile device from a smart device is determined based on the micro-location.
Claim 5, the limitation “cause a beacon device to transmit…” was interpreted as “cause one or more beacon devices of the plurality of beacon devices to transmit…” based upon Paragraph 86 of the specification, which discloses “in one example, the system can cause one or more beacon devices to transmit beacon signals at regular intervals”. Applicant’s amendment to the limitation conforms to that interpretation.
However, Applicant has additionally amended the limitation “determine a micro-location of the wireless mobile device based on the beacon signal received from the beacon device” to “determine a micro-location of the wireless mobile device based on the beacon signal received from the one or more beacon devices of the plurality of beacon devices”. This latter amendment was not expressly construed in the prior Office action. The amended limitation has changed the numerical scope of the beacon devices whose beacon signals can be used for determining the micro-location of the wireless mobile device, wherein the proximity to the wireless mobile device from a smart device is determined based on the micro-location.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are respectfully moot in view of the new grounds of rejection caused by the amendments.
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, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35.U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostka et al. US 2015 0079942 A1 hereinafter (“Kostka”) as modified by Mycek et al. US 2017 0164159 A1 (hereinafter “Mycek”) and further in view of Ensing US 20240406501 A1 (hereinafter “Ensing”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kostka teaches a system for personalizing a user-subscriber experience, the system comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and
at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraphs 9-10, Fig. 1, method for distributing micro-location-based notifications to a mobile computing device; Page 12, Paragraph 78, computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions), cause the system to:
detect a wireless mobile device in an indoor environment based on a signal generated by the wireless mobile device (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 10-13, Block S110, Mobile computer device, retail setting, receiving a beacon signal from a wireless beacon),
wherein the wireless mobile device is associated with a subscriber to a telecommunications network (The claim element, “subscriber of a telecommunications network” is considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation. Kostka teaches user data stored in a user profile managed by a related native retail application executing on the user's mobile computing device on Page 4, Paragraphs 28-29. A subscriber of a telecommunications network is a user of a telecommunications service and respective service-enabled device. Therefore, the disclosed user profile can be interpreted as subscriber data when associated with a subscriber), and
wherein the signal is generated in response to a beacon signal being received by the wireless mobile device (Kostka, Pages 1-2, Paragraph 15, Fig. 1, Block S120, wireless signal received subsequently of Block S110), and
wherein the signal includes a unique identifier of the subscriber (Kostka teaches passing user data [e.g., user demographic information, user visit frequency/user loyalty indicator which may include the number and value of user purchased from the store within a time period] stored in a user profile managed by a related native retail application executing on the user’s mobile computing device to the network in order to customize a notification, Page 4, Paragraphs 28-29, Fig. 1, Block S140);
determine a proximity to the wireless mobile device from a smart device in the indoor environment (Kostka, Pages 2-3, Paragraph 21, Block S120, estimate the proximity of the mobile computing device to the wireless beacon),
wherein the smart device is associated with an offer agreement for the indoor environment (Kostka, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 29, notification generator inputs for customized notification generation for a user can include user data, mobile computing device data; Paragraph 32, product within the store can be mapped with relation to one or more wireless beacons);
cause the wireless mobile device or the smart device to present the personalized offer agreement (Kostka, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 28-30, Fig. 2, Block S140, receive general information from the network [e.g., user, beacon, mobile computing device data, etc.] into the notification generator to generate a customized micro-location based notification for the user, based on an estimated position and/or orientation of the user’s mobile device relative to one or more beacons; Block S150, present notification to the user on the mobile computer device) personalized for the subscriber and the smart device (Kostka, Pages 2-3, Paragraph 26, Block S140, retrieve information related to the wireless beacon based on the unique identifier, collect and present personalize micro-location-based notification to the user).
Kostka fails to teach the limitations:
receive a personalized offer agreement as output from a large language model (LLM) based on input including the subscriber data, wherein the LLM is trained based on subscriber activity data of subscribers on the telecommunications network (Kostka does not disclose a large language model or machine-learning processes).
However, Mycek teaches the limitations:
receive a personalized offer agreement as output from a large language model (LLM) based on input including the subscriber data (Mycek, Page 3, Paragraphs 33-35, method for providing contextual content using a beacon system can be performed in whole or in part with a content determination system for generation/transmission of contextual content; Mycek does not explicitly disclose a large language model, but discloses content determination system, wherein contextual content may be generated using machine-learning techniques based on processed inputs, such a user profile, user contextual information [e.g., user social media, etc.] which can be regarded as natural language inputs, on Page 7, Paragraphs 56-57.),
wherein the LLM is trained based on subscriber activity data of subscribers on the telecommunications network (Mycek, Page 7, Paragraphs 57, machine learning modules can be updated periodically based on subsequent user action, non-action and purchase history, for example).
Although Kostka addresses the remaining limitations of Claim 1, Mycek demonstrates the following limitations of a system for personalizing a user-subscriber experience, the system comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and
at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (Mycek, Page 1, Paragraphs 19-20, beacon system; Page 5, Paragraph 44, processing system; Page 12, Paragraph 77, memory), cause the system to:
detect a wireless mobile device in an indoor environment based on a signal generated by the wireless mobile device (Mycek, Page 1, Paragraph 20, retail store; Page 4, Paragraph 40, radio of beacon system, transmit/receive data),
wherein the wireless mobile device is associated with a subscriber to a telecommunications network (The claim element, “subscriber of a telecommunications network” is considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation. Mycek discloses a user device, user-associated profile, activity data and contextual information, [e.g., user-device information associated with a user profile] as well as an entity [e.g., the merchant] associated with the beacon further associated with a user profile, on Page 7, Paragraph 57. A subscriber of a telecommunications network is a user of a telecommunications service and respective service-enabled device. Therefore, the disclosed user-specific data can be interpreted as subscriber data when associated with a subscriber);
wherein the signal is generated in response to a beacon signal being received by the wireless mobile device (Mycek, Page 4, Paragraph 40), and
wherein the signal includes a unique identifier of the subscriber (Mycek, Page 5, Paragraph 44, transmitted user device information; Page 7, Paragraph 53, user device identifier, user profile);
determine a proximity to the wireless mobile device from a smart device in the indoor environment (Mycek, Pages 10-11, Paragraph 71, determination of user device proximity to the beacon), wherein the smart device is associated with an offer agreement for the indoor environment (Mycek, Page 1, Paragraph 20, product information);
retrieve subscriber data based on the unique identifier of the subscriber (Mycek, Page 7, Paragraph 57),
wherein the subscriber data indicates activity data of the subscriber on the telecommunications network (Mycek discloses user-specific data, including user profile data such as purchase history, preferences, physical browsing history, device information, and interaction history, on Page 7, Paragraph 57);
receive a personalized offer agreement as output from a large language model (LLM) based on input including the subscriber data (Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 34; Page 7, Paragraphs 56-57),
wherein the LLM is trained based on subscriber activity data of subscribers on the telecommunications network (Mycek, Page 7, Paragraphs 57); and
cause the wireless mobile device or the smart device to present the personalized offer agreement personalized for the subscriber and the smart device (Mycek, Page 3, Paragraphs 31-33, output device, user device; Page 8, Paragraphs 58-60, content determined based on beacon system information user device information).
Mycek and Kostka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of targeted advertisements based on user location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kostka which clearly comprises a system for distributing micro-location-based notifications to a mobile computing device, wherein the generation and output of customized notifications (Kostka, Pages 3-4, Paragraphs 26-30, Blocks S140 – S150; Page 4, Paragraphs 28-29, examples of customized notifications include a product-specific discount for a user, product information, pricing information, product pictures, etc.) to a user mobile device in an indoor environment (Kostka, Page 4, Paragraph 29, proximity to wireless beacon[s], user information, mobile device data, etc.) to incorporate the teaching of Mycek wherein contextual content may be generated using machine-learning techniques (Mycek, Page 7, Paragraphs 56-57, generator content can be based on beacon system information, entity associated with the application executing on the user device, user device information, user profile associated with the user device, interaction information, supplementary beacon information, user contextual information, and/or any other suitable information), and wherein the content determination system is trained based on subscriber activity data of subscribers on the telecommunications network (Mycek, Page 7, Paragraph 57, the machine learning modules can be updated periodically; in response to and based on subsequent user action (or non-action), as determined based on the user purchase history; or updated in any other manner at any suitable time). Incorporating the machine-learning techniques of Mycek into the notification generation system of Kostka would enable the system to incorporate insightful user-specific and contextual data into the generated personalized content.
Kostka in view of Mycek fails to teach the claim element:
a large language model (LLM) (The machine-learning techniques of Mycek does not explicitly disclose a large language model).
However, Ensing teaches a system for personalizing a user experience, the system comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and
at least one at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (Ensing, Page 1, Paragraph 8, system for providing customized content to an identified user detected within a venue; Page 4, Paragraph 54, Fig. 1, Media Transmission Device 108, Processor 109, Memory 110), cause the system to:
detect a wireless mobile device in an indoor environment based on a signal generated by the wireless mobile device, wherein the signal is generated in response to a beacon signal being received by the wireless mobile device (Ensing, Page 4, Paragraph 49-50, Fig. 1, recognition device 101 configured to identify presence of the user 102 at a venue 103, user’s device 107; Page 5, Paragraphs 59-60, identify the user by receiving a near-field communication signal, signal indication to the point of interest that the user is nearby a point of interest in the venue), and
receive a personalized offer agreement as output from a large language model (LLM) based on input including the subscriber data, wherein the LLM is trained based on subscriber activity data of subscribers on the telecommunications network (Ensing discloses an identified user with an associated user device and configurable user preferences which may be stored and accessed from a database communicatively coupled to the recognition device, on Page 8, Paragraph 84. A subscriber of a telecommunications network is a user of a telecommunications service and respective service-enabled device. Therefore, the stored identified user data of Ensing can be interpreted as subscriber data when associated with a subscriber; Ensing further discloses custom media content generated by a machine learning model, which may include a neural network configured to communicate with a deep learning module, a natural language processing module [Pages 7-8, Paragraphs 81-82, natural language processing module], wherein custom content can be generated based on user preferences or information collected about the user from the user’s tracked location, user’s spoken inquiries, an application collecting direct user feedback, for example, on Pages 5-6, Paragraphs 65-71, Fig. 2, machine learning model employable by the media transmission device); and
cause the wireless mobile device or the smart device to present the personalized offer agreement personalized for the subscriber and the smart device (Ensing, Page 4, Paragraphs 50 and 54-55, media transmission device 108 delivers custom generated media to a media delivery device [e.g., user’s device 107]).
Ensing, Mycek and Kostka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of targeted advertisements for wireless devices (e.g. based on user profile or attributes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the micro-location notification generation and distribution system of Kostka (Kostka, Pages 3-4, Paragraphs 26-30, Blocks S140 – S150) in view of the beacon system of Mycek, which uses machine-learning techniques for generating and presenting contextual content specific to a user associated with a user device using beacons (Mycek, Page 7, Paragraphs 56-57, determining content using machine learning techniques to select, generate contextual content relevant to a user), to further incorporate the trained neural-network natural language processing generator of Ensing for generating text and custom content based on user-specific information (Ensing, Pages 5-6, Paragraphs 65-71, Fig. 2, machine learning model employable by the media transmission device; Pages 7-8, Paragraphs 81-82, natural language processing module). The modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so would likely improve the quality of the generated user-specific content presented to a user.
Regarding Claim 2, Kostka in view of Mycek teaches the system of claim 1. Kostka does not teach the system of claim 2. Mycek teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the activity data of the subscribers comprises any of:
transcriptions of voice or video calls communicated over the telecommunications network,
text-based messages communicated over the telecommunications network, or
browsing histories of subscribers of the telecommunications network (Mycek discloses physical browse history as information that can be included within a user profile associated with the user device on Page 7, Paragraph 57; Ensing, Pages 6-7, Paragraph 73, user interaction history; Paragraph 79, content-based filtering techniques to find content that is similar to items the particular user has interacted with in the past; Paragraph 81, natural language processing model employed to understand and interpret spoken or written human language).
The claim element, “subscriber of a telecommunications network” is considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation. Kostka teaches user data stored in a user profile managed by a related native retail application executing on the user's mobile computing device on Kostka, Page 4, Paragraphs 28-29. Mycek discloses a user device, user-associated profile, activity data and contextual information, [e.g., user-device information associated with a user profile] as well as an entity [e.g., the merchant] associated with the beacon further associated with a user profile on Mycek, Page 7, Paragraph 57. Ensing discloses an identified user with an associated user device and configurable user preferences which may be stored and accessed from a database communicatively coupled to the recognition device, on Ensing, Page 8, Paragraph 84. A subscriber of a telecommunications network is a user of a telecommunications service and respective service-enabled device. Therefore, the disclosed user profile of Kostka, the user-specific data of Mycek, and the stored identified user data of Ensing can be interpreted as subscriber data when associated with a subscriber.
Regarding Claim 13, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Ensing teaches a method for personalizing subscriber experience at a indoor environment, the method comprising:
detecting, using a triggering event at a smart device in the indoor environment (Mycek, Page 3, auxiliary devices, merchant devices; Page 8, Paragraph 58, retail store; Page 9, Paragraph 64, trigger event), a wireless mobile device (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 10, mobile computer device) associated with a subscriber of a telecommunications network (Kostka, Page 4, Paragraph 28-29, user profile; Mycek, Page 7, Paragraph 57, user device associated with a user profile, user-specific data; Ensing, Page 8, Paragraph 84, stored data of an identified user);
wherein the triggering event indicates that the wireless mobile device is proximate to the smart device (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 10-13, Block S110, Mobile computer device, retail setting, receiving a beacon signal from a wireless beacon; Mycek, Page 9, Paragraph 64, trigger event, threshold distance);
receiving a unique identifier of the subscriber from the wireless mobile device (Mycek, Page 7, Paragraph 53, user device identifier);
inputting the unique identifier and information about the smart device to a large language model (LLM) that is trained based on activity data of subscribers to the telecommunications network (Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 34; Page 7, Paragraphs 56-57, content determination system; Ensing, Pages 5-6, Paragraphs 65-71, Fig. 2, machine learning model employable by the media transmission device; Pages 7-8, Paragraphs 81-82, natural language processing module);
receiving, as output from the LLM, proximity-based information including an offer agreement that is personalized for the subscriber and the smart device (Mycek, Page 3, Paragraphs 31-33, output device, user device; Page 8, Paragraphs 58-60, content determined based on beacon system information user device information; Ensing, Pages 5-6, Paragraphs 65-71, machine learning model, natural language processing module); and
causing the wireless mobile device, the smart device, or a kiosk proximate to the smart device to present the proximity-based information (Mycek, Page 3, Paragraphs 31-32, output device, merchant devices; Page 9, Paragraph 65, presenting the content).
Regarding Claim 16, it differs from Claim 1 only in that it is one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media storing instructions recorded thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one data processor of a system of a telecommunications network, cause the system to perform the system of Claim 1. (Kostka, Mycek and Ensing each disclose one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media storing instructions recorded thereon in Kostka, Page 12, Paragraph 18, Mycek, Page 12, Paragraph 77, Ensing, Page 8, Paragraph 88). It recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Ensing discloses them.
Claims 3-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35.U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostka as modified by Mycek, in view of Ensing and further in view of Storm et al. US 2020 0097704 A1 (hereinafter “Storm”).
Regarding Claim 3, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Ensing teaches the system of claim 1. Kostka and Ensing do not teach the system of claim 3. Mycek teaches the system of claim 3, further caused to:
enable a user to interact with the personalized offer agreement by selecting a button on a user interface presented on wireless mobile device or the smart device to request additional information about the device accessible by the subscriber,
wherein the personalized offer agreement includes contextual pricing for the smart device (Mycek, Page 1, Paragraph 20, product information; Page 3, Paragraph 34, Pages 7-8, Paragraphs 56-60, content determination system).
Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Ensing fails to teach the limitation:
enable a user to interact with the personalized offer agreement by selecting a button on a user interface presented on wireless mobile device or the smart device to request additional information about the device accessible by the subscriber
However, Storm teaches the limitation:
enable a user to interact with the personalized offer agreement by selecting a button on a user interface presented on wireless mobile device or the smart device to request additional information about the device accessible by the subscriber (Storm, Page 3, Paragraphs 31-32, display 110 displays information to the user, may be used by user to interact with the kiosk 140; Page 5, Paragraph 54, Fig. 3, system 300, display device 315; Paragraph 73, mobile computing device).
The limitation of Claim 3 to “request additional information about the device accessible by the subscriber” is considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation.
Storm, Ensing, Mycek and Kostka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of authentication in wireless communication networks, technology and methods specially adapted for commerce purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Ensing to incorporate the teaching of Storm to enable a user to interact with the personalized offer agreement by selecting a button on a user interface presented on wireless mobile device or the smart device to request additional information about the device accessible by the subscriber. Doing so would increase functionality of a system through the ability to collect user input, allowing for a more dynamic interactive retail environment.
Regarding Claim 4, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Storm teaches the system of claim 1 further caused to:
cause one or more beacon devices of a plurality of beacon devices to transmit beacon signals at regular intervals (Kostka, Page 7, Paragraph 47, transmission interval; Mycek, Page 5, Paragraphs 35 and 38, operation mode; Storm, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 47, lighthouse beacon); and
determine a micro-location of the wireless mobile device based on the beacon signals received from the one or more beacon devices of the plurality of beacon devices,
wherein the proximity to the wireless mobile device from a smart device is determined based on the micro-location (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 15, strength of the wireless signal; Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 35, method can be performed with one or more supplementary beacons; Pages 10-11, Paragraph 71, determination of user device proximity to the beacon, signal strength exceeding a threshold strength; Storm, Page 4, Paragraph 39-40, mobile devices may provide the user identifier along with the signal characteristics to the kiosk).
Regarding Claim 5, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Storm teaches the system of claim 1 further caused to:
cause one or more beacon devices of the plurality of beacon devices to transmit the beacon signal at a regular interval (Kostka, Page 7, Paragraph 47; Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 31, auxiliary devices; Page 5, Paragraphs 35 and 38; Storm, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 47); and
determine a micro-location of the wireless mobile device based on the beacon signal received from the one or more beacon devices of the plurality of beacon devices (Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 35, method can be performed with one or more supplementary beacons),
wherein the proximity to the wireless mobile device from a smart device is determined based on the micro-location (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 15; Mycek, Pages 10-11, Paragraph 71; Storm, Page 4, Paragraph 39-40).
Regarding Claim 6, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Storm teaches the system of claim 1 further caused to:
cause the smart device to transmit the beacon signal at a regular (Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 31; Page 5, Paragraphs 35 and 38; Storm, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 47); and
determine a micro-location of the wireless mobile device based on the beacon signal received from a beacon device of the plurality of beacon devices,
wherein the proximity to the wireless mobile device from a smart device is determined based on the micro-location (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 15; Mycek, Pages 10-11, Paragraph 71; Storm, Page 4, Paragraph 39-40).
Regarding Claim 7, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Storm teaches the system of claim 1 further caused to:
determine a micro-location of the wireless mobile device based on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the signal location (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 15; Mycek, Pages 10-11, Paragraph 71; Storm, Page 4, Paragraph 39-40),
wherein the signal is transmitted using a Bluetooth protocol or a Wi-Fi protocol (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 12-13; Mycek, Page 4, Paragraph 40; Storm, Page 3, Paragraph 35, Page 7, Paragraph 71), and
wherein the proximity to the wireless mobile device from a smart device is determined based on the micro-location (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 15; Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 31; Pages 10-11, Paragraph 71; Storm, Page 4, Paragraph 39-40).
Regarding Claim 8, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Storm teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the indoor environment includes multiple smart devices (Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 31), associated with respective offer agreements (Mycek Page 1, Paragraph 20, product information) and wherein the system is further caused to:
cause the wireless mobile device or the smart devices to present respective offer agreements that are personalized for the subscriber and respective smart devices (Kostka, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 30, Block S150, present notification to the user on the mobile computer device; Mycek, Page 3, Paragraphs 31-33, output device; Page 9, Paragraph 65, presenting the content; Storm, Page 3, Paragraph 32, display information to the user).
Regarding Claim 9, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Storm teaches the system of claim 1. Kostka as modified by Mycek does not teach the system of claim 9. Storm teaches the system of claim 9, wherein to determine the proximity to the wireless mobile device from the smart device comprises causing the system to:
estimate a distance to the wireless mobile device from the smart device based on an image of the wireless mobile device captured by a camera of the smart device (Storm, Page 5, Paragraph 54, display device 315, image sensor 305 can be component of the camera),
wherein the estimate is based on a size of the wireless mobile device in the image (Storm, Page 6, Paragraphs 58-59, image comparison), and
wherein the wireless mobile device is determined to be proximate to the smart device when the estimate satisfies or exceeds a threshold distance (Storm, Page 6, Paragraphs 58-59, captured image of the user, score value meeting a threshold, determined proximity of a respective mobile device for each of the users).
Regarding Claim 10, Kostka as modified by Mycek, in view of Ensing and further in view of Storm teaches the system of claim 1 further caused to:
cause display of personalized information on the wireless mobile device (Kostka, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 30, Block S150; Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 34),
wherein the personalized information is generated by the LLM (Mycek, Page 7, Paragraphs 56-57, content determination system, machine learning techniques; Ensing, Pages 5-6, Paragraphs 65-71, Fig. 2, machine learning model employable by the media transmission device; Pages 7-8, Paragraphs 81-82, natural language processing module); and
receive input at the wireless mobile device including an interaction with the personalized information to accept the offer agreement (Storm, Page 3, Paragraph 32, kiosk, display 110 displays information to the user, may be used by user to interact with the kiosk 140; Page 7, Paragraph 73, other implementations, mobile device).
The limitation of Claims 10 “to accept the offer agreement” considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation.
Regarding Claim 11, Kostka as modified by Mycek, in view of Ensing and further in view of Storm teaches the system of claim 1 further caused to:
cause display of personalized information on the smart device (Kostka, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 30, Block S150; Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 34),
wherein the personalized information is generated by the LLM (Mycek, Page 7, Paragraphs 56-57, content determination system, machine learning techniques; Ensing, Pages 5-6, Paragraphs 65-71, Fig. 2, machine learning model employable by the media transmission device; Pages 7-8, Paragraphs 81-82, natural language processing module); and
in response to the personalized information, configure the smart device to receive input to accept the offer agreement (Storm, Page 3, Paragraph 32, kiosk, display 110 displays information to the user, may be used by user to interact with the kiosk 140; Page 7, Paragraph 73, other implementations, mobile device). The limitation of Claims 11 “to accept the offer agreement” is considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation.
Regarding Claim 12, Kostka as modified by Mycek, in view of Ensing and further in view of Storm teaches the system of claim 1. Kostka does not teach the system of claim 12. Mycek as modified by Ensing and in view of Storm teaches the system of claim 12, further caused to:
cause display of personalized information on a kiosk device proximate to the smart device,
wherein the personalized information is generated by the LLM (Mycek, Page 7, Paragraphs 56-57, content determination system, machine learning techniques; Ensing, Pages 5-6, Paragraphs 65-71, Fig. 2, machine learning model employable by the media transmission device; Pages 7-8, Paragraphs 81-82, natural language processing module); and
in response to the personalized information, configure the kiosk device to receive input to accept the offer agreement (Storm, Page 3, Paragraph 32, kiosk, display 110 displays information to the user, may be used by user to interact with the kiosk 140; Page 7, Paragraph 73, other implementations, mobile device).
The limitations of Claims 12 “to accept the offer agreement” is considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation.
Regarding Claim 14, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Storm teaches the method of claim 13, wherein detecting the wireless mobile device proximate to the smart device further comprises:
causing the smart device to transmit a beacon signal at a regular interval (Mycek, Page 3, auxiliary devices; Storm, Page 7, Paragraph 73, other implementations, mobile device),
wherein the triggering event includes an indication that the wireless mobile device received the beacon signal (Kostka, Pages 1-2, Paragraph 15, Fig. 1, Block S120, wireless signal received subsequently of Block S110, receiving a beacon signal from a wireless beacon; Mycek, Page 9, Paragraph 64, trigger event; Storm, Page 4, Paragraph 39-40, advertised signal received by mobile devices in proximity to the device).
Regarding Claim 15, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Storm teaches
The method of claim 13:
wherein smart device is a smart phone that is configured as a beacon device (Mycek, Page 3, auxiliary devices; Storm, Page 7, Paragraph 73, other implementations, mobile device) to transmit beacon signal at a regular interval (Kostka, Page 7, Paragraph 47; Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 31, auxiliary devices; Page 5, Paragraphs 35 and 38; Storm, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 47), and
wherein the triggering event includes an indication that the wireless mobile device received the beacon signal (Kostka, Pages 1-2, Paragraph 15, Fig. 1, Block S120, wireless signal received subsequently of Block S110, receiving a beacon signal from a wireless beacon; Mycek, Page 9, Paragraph 64, trigger event; Storm, Page 4, Paragraph 39-40, advertised signal received by mobile devices in proximity to the device).
Regarding Claim 17, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Storm teaches the computer-readable storage media of claim 16, wherein the system is further caused to, prior to the wireless mobile device being detected:
cause one or more beacon devices of a plurality of beacon devices to transmit the beacon signal at a regular interval (Kostka, Page 7, Paragraph 47; Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 31, auxiliary devices; Page 5, Paragraphs 35 and 38; Storm, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 47),
wherein the micro-location is determined based on the wireless mobile device receiving the beacon signal (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 15; Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 31; Pages 10-11, Paragraph 71; Storm, Page 4, Paragraph 39-40).
Regarding Claim 18, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Storm teaches the computer-readable storage media of claim 16, wherein the system is further caused to, prior to the wireless mobile device being detected:
cause the smart device to transmit the beacon signal at a regular interval (Mycek, Page 3, auxiliary devices; Storm, Page 7, Paragraph 73, other implementations, mobile device),
wherein the micro-location is determined based on the wireless mobile device receiving the beacon signal (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 15; Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 31; Pages 10-11, Paragraph 71; Storm, Page 4, Paragraph 39-40).
Regarding Claim 19, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Storm teaches the computer-readable storage media of claim 16:
wherein the micro-location is determined based on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the signal (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 15; Mycek, Page 3, Paragraph 31; Pages 10-11, Paragraph 71; Storm, Page 4, Paragraph 39-40), and
wherein the signal is transmitted using a Bluetooth protocol or a Wi-Fi protocol (Kostka, Page 1, Paragraph 12-13; Mycek, Page 4, Paragraph 40; Storm, Page 3, Paragraph 35, Page 7, Paragraph 71).
Regarding Claim 20, Kostka as modified by Mycek and further in view of Storm teaches the computer-readable storage media of claim 16. Kostka in view of Mycek does not teach the computer-readable storage media of claim 20. Storm teaches the computer-readable storage media of claim 20, wherein to determine the micro-location of the wireless mobile device in the indoor environment comprises causing the system to:
estimate a distance to the wireless mobile device from the smart device based on an image of the wireless mobile device captured by a camera of the smart device (Storm, Page 5, Paragraph 54, display device 315, image sensor 305 can be component of the camera),
wherein the estimate is based on a size of the wireless mobile device in the image (Storm, Page 6, Paragraphs 58-59, image comparison),
wherein the wireless mobile device is determined to be proximate to the smart device when the estimate satisfies or exceeds a threshold distance (Storm, Page 6, Paragraphs 58-59, captured image of the user, score value meeting a threshold, determined proximity of a respective mobile device for each of the users).
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Naujok et al., (U.S. 20220217527 A1) discloses approaches for receiving signals, at a communication device, which relate to parameters of a subscriber co-located with the communications device (Naujok, Pages 7-8, Paragraph 48, responsive to the initiation a process to generate a pre-filled form [e.g., subscriber interaction with QR code]), wherein presentation of content to a subscriber operating a communications device is based on eligibility of a subscriber (Naujok, Page 7-10, Paragraphs 49-50 and Paragraph 64, eligibility determination based on criteria such as historical events with respect to communication device [e.g., browsing habits of the subscriber, shopping habits of the subscriber), subscriber data attributes [e.g., unique communications service subscriber account identifier such as telephone number, IMEI/IMSI, device identifier], historical transactional/purchase history, visit history, etc.) In response to the determination of the subscriber’s conditional eligibility, the subscriber can be presented with an option to proceed in generating content (generating a completed form, related to completing an e-commerce checkout process or digital sign-up, for example) on the user interface of the communications device (Paragraphs 51-54 and Paragraph 65, Fig. 4B, presented content [e.g., a selector to pre-fill/auto-fill a form without subscriber input] and subscriber parameters may be retrieved [e.g., from a communication service provider) for form completion).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLE N DAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu. 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, AKWASI SARPONG can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/GABRIELLE N DAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2681
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681 6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights