DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 07/14/2026. Claims 1, 14, and 19 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending and have been addressed below. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 1 recites a machine (i.e., a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), claim 14 recites a manufacture (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means), claim 19 recites a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps) Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
4. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 14, and 19 recite:
“in response to detecting…the subscriber”, “obtain a unique identifier of a subscriber of a telecommunications network”, “wherein the subscriber is associated with…located in the service environment;”, “retrieve subscriber data of the subscriber based on the unique identifier, wherein the subscriber data is indicative of historical interactions of the subscriber with a service administered by an operator of the telecommunications network;”, “input the retrieved subscriber data and service environment data…”, “generate…a ranked list of subscriber insights about a particular subscriber in the service environment, wherein the ranked list is based on historical interactions between the particular subscriber and the service administered by the operator of the telecommunications network;”, “receive, as output…a personalized interaction guide including instructions generated for use by a service agent located at the service environment to interact with the subscriber, wherein the service agent is an agent of the service administered by the operator of the telecommunications network;”, “cause display of content from the personalized interaction guide…associated with the service agent and configured to present the personalized interaction guide to assist the subscriber in the service environment”
The limitations as drafted under the broadest reasonable interpretation cover processes for identifying a subscriber’s location at a service environment, i.e., telecommunications facility, analyzing the subscriber/service agent information, and displaying customized guidance for the service agent located at the service environment to assist the subscriber encompasses concepts relating to commercial interactions, (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations), managing personal behavior or interactions between people, (i.e., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and mental processes, (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions), which is subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)
The Applicant’s specification in at least [0002] Location-based services (LBS) refer to services that use geographic data and information to provide services or information to users. LBS can be used in a variety of contexts, such as health, indoor object search, entertainment, work, and personal life. Commonly used examples of location-based services include navigation software, social networking services, location-based advertising, and tracking systems. LBS can also include mobile commerce when taking the form of coupons or advertising directed at customers based on their current location. LBS also includes personalized weather services and even location-based games.
The limitations of “in response”, “obtain”, “retrieve”, “input”, “generate”, “receive as output”, “cause of display” in the context of the claim describe processes for identifying and analyzing a subscriber visiting a telecommunication service facility and displaying guidance to a service agent to assist the subscriber with decision making encompasses concepts relating to commercial interactions and managing personal behavior or interactions between people. Additionally, the limitations of “obtain”, “retrieve”, “input”, “generate”, “receive as output” in the context of the claim describe mental processes for obtaining and analyzing known information about the subscriber/service agent to aid the service agent with facilitating tasks, where the analyzation steps are recited at a high-level of generality and carry out tasks that may be performed in the human mind or with pen/paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
5. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a system”, “at least one hardware processor;” “at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the system to:”, “a wireless mobile device”, “a short-range beacon signal”, “a micro-location”, “a service device”, “the wireless mobile device”, “a large language model (LLM)”, “by the LLM”, “a display device” – see claims 1, 14, and 19 are all recited in the specification at a high-level of generality. Thus, because applicant’s specification describes these additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting generic computer components and functionalities in light of the disclosure. These claimed additional elements merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)
The other additional elements of: “receive a signal generated…in response to…broadcast…,” and “detect…a subscriber within the service environment based on the signal strength value meeting or exceeding a threshold value, wherein…is determined to be proximate to…the service agent” adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data receiving/transmission, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (g)
The other additional elements of: “personalize interactions of a service agent in a service environment of a telecommunications operator” and “a telecommunications network” is/are merely an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (h)
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a system”, “at least one hardware processor;” “at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the system to:”, “a wireless mobile device”, “a short-range beacon signal”, “a micro-location”, “a service device”, “the wireless mobile device”, “a large language model (LLM)”, “by the LLM”, “a display device” – see claims 1, 14, and 19, amounts to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, at Step 2B the claim(s) are ineligible.
The additional elements of “receive a signal generated…in response to…broadcast…,” and “detect…a subscriber within the service environment based on the signal strength value meeting or exceeding a threshold value, wherein…is determined to be proximate to…the service agent” were considered insignificant extra-solution activity above and must be re-evaluated at Step 2B to determine whether the additional elements are considered well-known, routine, or conventional. The MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) discusses the Symantec, TLI communications, OIP Techs, buySAFE court decisions which indicate “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a generic manner. Thus, when viewed individually and in combination with the claimed invention, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
6. Dependent claims include 2-4, 6-13,15-18, and 20.
Clams 2 and 15 recite “wherein to obtain the unique identifier comprises causing the system to: receive a signal generated by the wireless mobile device in response to receiving a short-range beacon signal broadcast at the service environment; wherein the signal includes an indication of a signal strength value for the short-range beacon signal, and wherein the short-range beacon signal is broadcast in accordance with a Wi-Fi or Bluetooth protocol; determine that the signal strength value meets or exceeds a threshold value, wherein the threshold value is indicative of a micro-location of the wireless mobile device in the service environment; transmit a request to the wireless mobile device for the unique identifier; and in response to the request, receive the unique identifier from the wireless mobile device.” which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 3 recites “wherein to obtain the unique identifier comprises causing the system to: receive a signal generated by the wireless mobile device in response to receiving a short-range beacon signal broadcast at the service environment; wherein the signal includes an indication of a micro-location of the wireless mobile device based on a signal strength value of the short-range beacon signal; determine that the micro-location is proximate to service device associated with the service agent in the service environment” which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP 2106.05(g)., Claims 4 and 15 recite “wherein to obtain the unique identifier comprises causing the system to: detect, based on a near field communication (NFC), that the wireless mobile device is proximate to a service device associated with the service agent at the service environment, wherein the NFC is between the wireless mobile device and the service device; and identify the unique identifier of subscriber of the wireless mobile device based on the NFC.” which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP 2106.05(g), Claim 6 recites “wherein to obtain the unique identifier comprises causing the system to: cause activation of a radio frequency identification (RFID) module integrated in the wireless mobile device; identify the unique identifier of subscriber of the wireless mobile device upon entering a predefined zone of an RFID tag located in the service environment” which serve as additional elements recited at a high-level of generality and in general terms such that they may be construed as the data sources, i.e., generic computing components/software, being used to gather data and organize data in order to perform the abstract idea, Claim 7 recites “wherein the LLM is caused to: generate a summary of a recent interaction between the subscriber and the service administered by the operator of the telecommunications network; generate an analysis of the recent interaction based on natural language processing (NLP) and tone detection; and include the summary and the analysis of the recent interaction in the personalized interaction guide.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed. Here, the additional element of the LLM is nominally recited and merely being used to perform the abstract idea, Claims 8 and 16 recite “wherein to generate the personalized interaction guide comprises causing the system to: input a subscriber insight for the subscriber into the LLM; retrieve a tone prediction for a recent interaction associated with the subscriber insight; order multiple subscriber insights including the subscriber insight among based on the tone prediction; and receive, as output of the LLM, the ranked list of the multiple subscriber insights.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Here, the additional element of the LLM is nominally recited and merely being used to perform the abstract idea, Claim 9 recite “wherein to generate the personalized interaction guide comprises causing the system to: input a subscriber insight for the subscriber into the LLM; retrieve a date and a time of a recent interaction associated with the subscriber insight; and order multiple subscriber insights including the subscriber insight based on the date and the time; and receive, as output of the LLM, the ranked list of the multiple subscriber insights.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Here, the additional element of the LLM is nominally recited and merely being used to perform the abstract idea. Claim 10 recites “wherein to generate the personalized interaction guide comprises causing the system to: input a subscriber insight for the subscriber into the LLM; retrieve a date and a time of a recent interaction associated with the subscriber insight; and order multiple subscriber insights including the subscriber insight based on the date and the time; and receive, as output of the LLM, the ranked list of the multiple subscriber insights” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Here, the additional element of the LLM is nominally recited and merely being used to perform the abstract idea. Claims 11 and 17 recite “wherein to generate the personalized interaction guide comprises causing the system to: input a subscriber insight for the subscriber into the LLM; retrieve a numerical value for a recent interaction associated with the subscriber insight; and order multiple subscriber insights including the subscriber insight based on the numerical value; and receive, as output of the LLM, the ranked list of the multiple subscriber insights.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Here, the additional element of the LLM is nominally recited and merely being used to perform the abstract idea. Claims 12 and 18 recite “wherein the personalized interaction guide is modifiable at a service device in the service environment by the service agent of the service administered by the operator of the telecommunications network to update or correct information based on an in-person interaction between the subscriber and the service agent” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 13 recites “further caused to: cause activation of a service device in the service environment to present a 2D barcode to the wireless mobile device, wherein the 2D barcode codes a uniform resource locator (URL) to a webpage for the service administered by the operator of the telecommunications network cause the wireless mobile device to, upon scanning the 2D barcode, present a user interface including a request that prompts a user of the wireless mobile device to present the unique identifier.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 20 recites “further comprising, prior to receiving the user data: detect presence of the user device at the indoor environment; request the identifier from the user device; and in response to the request, receive the identifier from the user device.” which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP 2106.05(g) Accordingly, when viewing the dependent claims individually and in combination with the claimed invention, they do not provide an inventive concept or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crutchfield (US 2015/0112826 A1) in view of Petrey (US 2024/0412524 A1) in view of Greenberger (US 2019/0362406 A1) in further view of Kusens (US 2017/0111770 A1)
With respect to claims 1, 14, and 19, Crutchfield discloses
a system, one or more non transitory computer-readable storage media, and a method (Figs. 2, 17) configured to personalize interactions of a service agent in a service environment of a telecommunications operator (¶ 0135-0136: discloses system for customizing a vendor’s experience for a customer. The system comprises a brick and mortar store. The brick and mortar store may include in-store sales representatives to provide in store customer assistance and to help customize the sales process to the customer’s needs, preferences, and traits.), the system comprising:
at least one hardware processor (Fig. 17: disclose a processor 1702); and
at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions (Fig. 17: discloses a storage medium 1704), which,
when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the system to:
detect a wireless mobile device associated with a subscriber within a micro-location of the service environment (¶ 0084, 0086-0087, 0090-0092, 0109, 0145: discloses the vending location is a physical retail store. After a customer enters the vending location, the vendor may identify customers with wireless communication devices. The vendor may identify a customer using sensors located at the store or using software on the customer’s mobile device. The vendor may automatically detect the mobile device of the customer.),
wherein the micro-location is determined to be proximate (¶ 0008, 0084, 0086-0087, 0090-0092, 0109, 0145: discloses the mobile device communicates to the vendor when the mobile device is located at a vendor location) to a service device associated with the service agent (¶ 0038, 0113: discloses the sales representative may have a separate mobile device, i.e., advisor tablet, running a software application that he or she may use while engaging a customer in the sales process. Thus a sales representative may greet the customer by name as soon as the customer enters the store. The sales representatives may use their own personal experience or expertise with certain products to provide more useful answers.)
in response to detecting the wireless mobile device associated with the subscriber (¶ 0086-0087, 0090-0092, 0109, 0137, 0145: discloses upon entering the store the customer can use their mobile device to send a message to a server that checks the customer into the store.)
obtain a unique identifier of a subscriber (¶ 0086-0087, 0090-0092, 0109, 0137, 0145, 0310-0314: discloses the vendor may automatically detect the customer’s identification information on the mobile device) of a telecommunications network (¶ 0009, 0084, 0088, 0135),
wherein the subscriber is associated with the wireless mobile device located in the service environment (¶ 0086-0087, 0090-0092, 0109, 0137, 0145: the vendor may identify the customer based on the customer’s entrance into the store.);
retrieve subscriber data of the subscriber based on the unique identifier (¶ 0310-0314: discloses with the shopper’s unique identifier, the shopper databases may be quickly queried for any information that might be useful to improve the shopper’s current experience in the physical retail location.),
wherein the subscriber data is indicative of historical interactions of the subscriber with a service (¶ 0310-0314: discloses the shopper’s recorded data includes indications and clues as to what products and/or information the shopper is interested in, has already possessed, or is likely to need in the future) administered by an operator (¶ 0308: discloses a retailer) of the telecommunications network (¶ 0088, 0135);
generate subscriber insights about a particular subscriber in the service environment (¶ 0317: discloses the server may put together a set of information about the shopper and shopper’s needs.), wherein based on historical interactions between the particular subscriber and the service administered by the operator of the telecommunications network (¶ 0317: discloses based on the recorded data about the shopper’s prior and/or current visits.);
receive, as output, a personalized interaction guide including instructions generated for use by a service agent located at the service environment to interact with the subscriber (¶ 0317: discloses one or more customized communications may also be generated for a retail employee to assist the shopper.),
wherein the service agent is an agent of the service administered by the operator of the telecommunications network (¶ 0136-0137: discloses an in-store sales representative to provide in store customer assistance and to help customize the sales process to the customer’s needs, preferences, and traits.); and
cause display of content from the personalized interaction guide on a display device associated with the service agent and configured to present the personalized interaction guide to assist the subscriber in the service environment. (¶ 0317: discloses the server may put together and push to one or more chosen employee(s) a set of information about the shopper, the shopper’s needs, and recommended strategy on how to help the shopper.)
The Crutchfield reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Petrey reference is related to techniques for generating personalized sales plans based on real-time customer activity (¶ 0003, Fig. 9) and teaches:
input the retrieved subscriber data into a large language model (LLM) (¶ 0143, 0145, 0147, 0152, 0181, 0187: discloses the cloud-based computing system 702 can employ one or more artificial intelligence models to receive as input customer activity information and provide outputs.); generate, by the LLM, a ranked list (¶ 0143, 0145, 0147, 0152, 0181, 0187: discloses the PARCO can include instructions about the order in which the customized offerings should be presented to the customer.); receive, as output from the LLM (¶ 0143, 0145, 0147, 0152, 0181, 0187: discloses in order to provide the output, the customer activity information is matched against product/services offerings 816. The cloud-based computing system can generate a report that includes information about relevant PARCO services that can be offered and then be provided to a managing entity of the retail store 703 so that the managing entity can be made aware of the missed sales opportunities and potentially mitigate them by accessing the PARCO services provided by the cloud-based computing system. The PARCO can include instructions about the order in which the customized offerings should be presented to the prospective customer. The customized offerings can be prioritized from the most beneficial to the least beneficial with respect to the retail store.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Crutchfield’s system and methods, to include an artificial intelligence model for providing customized offerings based on customer activity information, as disclosed by Petrey to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Petrey, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages during an in-person shopping experience that enables retailers to continually adapt their strategies to match customer expectations and improve techniques for generating personalized sales plans. (¶ 0005-0008)
The combination of Crutchfield and Petrey do not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Greenberger reference is related to methods and systems for executing digital actions in a retail environment, such as a retail environment, store, marketplace, dealership, grocery store, retail store, club, or the like (¶ 0019) and teaches:
input service environment data based on the detected micro-location (¶ 0023, 0029, 0035: discloses the receiving module receives location data, micro-location data, and locating related metadata about the user when the user is present in the retail environment. The micro-location data may be used to build a context that can be used for analysis and resulting actions.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Crutchfield and Petrey, to include the techniques for input service environment data based on the detected micro-location, as disclosed by Greenberger to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Greenberger, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages for an improved shopping experience for shoppers and marketing capabilities for companies. (¶ 0019)
The combination of Crutchfield, Petrey and Greenberger does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Kusens reference is related to a system and method for identifying a customer’s location at a business and provide notification to a company representative upon arrival of the customer at the business location and teaches (abstract, ¶ 0004)
receive a signal generated by a wireless mobile device in response to a short-range beacon signal broadcast at the service environment (Figs. 4 and 6, ¶ 0063-0064, 0114: discloses receive the broadcast information from the App on the customer’s device. The customer’s device constantly and automatically broadcasts it’s information.),
wherein the signal includes an indication of a signal strength value for the short-range beacon signal (Figs. 4 and 6, ¶ 0063-0064, 0066, 0114: discloses the broadcasted information includes signal type and strength.);
detect the wireless mobile device associated with a subscriber within a micro- location of the service environment based on the signal strength value meeting or exceeding a threshold value (Figs. 4 and 6, ¶ 0045, 0063-0064, 0066, 0071, 0075, 0114: discloses the system analyzes the data received from the app. Once the app on a customer’s device reports a signal strength value above a minimum threshold, it must continue to report a signal strength value above that threshold in order to for the customer to be considered at that location. Notifications are sent out by the system designed to inform specific staff members or departments of the facility when specific customers arrive at the location. By having the novel system as described a company or organization can have staff members or management be notified when certain classes of customer or specific customers arrive at their business. The system can be designed such that sometimes the beacons communicate with the system and other times the customer’s electronic device communicates with the system.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, and Greenberger to include the techniques for detecting a customer’s location, as disclosed by the Kusens reference to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Kusens, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages to service providers of a company the ability to track customer movements and precise location within a facility so that they can tailor or modify service offerings. (¶ 0122-0126)
With respect to claims 2 and 15, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey and Greenberger discloses the system and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media,
wherein to obtain the unique identifier (¶ 0311: Crutchfield discloses the shopper may be identified with a unique identifier that serves to distinguish each shopper from other visitors or customers of the retailer.) comprises causing the system to:
wherein the short-range beacon signal is broadcast in accordance with a Wi-Fi or Bluetooth protocol (¶ 0087, 0090: Crutchfield discloses Bluetooth or Wi-Fi can communicate customer data over short distances to the vendor using short wavelength radio transmission);
transmit a request to the wireless mobile device for the unique identifier (¶ 0088, 0090, 0092: Crutchfield discloses mobile devices can support wireless communications that can communicate the customer identification to the vendor.); and in response to the request, receive the unique identifier from the wireless mobile device. (¶ 0088, 0090, 0092: Crutchfield discloses the mobile device may then automatically communicate the customer’s identification information to a receiver or server at the vendor.)
The combination of Crutchfield, Petrey and Greenberger does not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
However, Kusens discloses:
receive a signal generated by the wireless mobile device in response to receiving a short-range beacon signal broadcast at the service environment (Figs. 4 and 6, ¶ 0063-0064, 0114: discloses receive the broadcasted information from the App on the customer’s device. The customer’s device constantly and automatically broadcasts it’s information.);
wherein the signal includes an indication of a signal strength value for the short-range beacon signal (Figs. 4 and 6, ¶ 0063-0064, 0066, 0114: discloses the broadcasted information includes signal type and strength.), and
determine that the signal strength value meets or exceeds a threshold value, wherein the threshold value is indicative of a micro-location of the wireless mobile device in the service environment (Figs. 4 and 6, ¶ 0045, 0063-0064, 0066, 0071, 0075, 0114: discloses the system analyzes the data received from the app. Once the app on a customer’s device reports a signal strength value above a minimum threshold, it must continue to report a signal strength value above that threshold in order to for the customer to be considered at that location. Notifications are sent out by the system designed to inform specific staff members or departments of the facility when specific customers arrive at the location. By having the novel system as described a company or organization can have staff members or management be notified when certain classes of customer or specific customers arrive at their business. The system can be designed such that sometimes the beacons communicate with the system and other times the customer’s electronic device communicates with the system.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, and Greenberger to include the techniques for detecting a customer’s location, as disclosed by the Kusens reference to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Kusens, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages to service providers of a company the ability to track customer movements and precise location within a facility so that they can tailor or modify service offerings. (¶ 0122-0126)
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey and Greenberger discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein to obtain the unique identifier (¶ 0311: Crutchfield discloses the shopper may be identified with a unique identifier that serves to distinguish each shopper from other visitors or customers of the retailer.) comprises causing the system to:
determine that the micro-location is proximate to service device associated with the service agent in the service environment. (¶ 0092: Crutchfield discloses upon entering the store the vendor may detect the customer identification information and then a sales representative may greet the customer by name as soon as the customer enters the store.)
The combination of Crutchfield, Petrey and Greenberger does not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
However, Kusens discloses:
receive a signal generated by the wireless mobile device in response to receiving a short-range beacon signal broadcast at the service environment (Figs. 4 and 6, ¶ 0063-0064, 0114: discloses receive the broadcasted information from the App on the customer’s device. The customer’s device constantly and automatically broadcasts it’s information.); wherein the signal includes an indication of a micro-location of the wireless mobile device (Figs. 4 and 6, ¶ 0045, 0063-0064, 0066, 0071, 0075, 0114: discloses the system analyzes the data received from the app. Once the app on a customer’s device reports a signal strength value above a minimum threshold, it must continue to report a signal strength value above that threshold in order to for the customer to be considered at that location.) based on a signal strength value of the short-range beacon signal (Figs. 4 and 6, ¶ 0063-0064, 0066, 0114: discloses the broadcasted information includes signal type and strength.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, and Greenberger to include the techniques for detecting the signal strength of customer, as disclosed by the Kusens reference to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Kusens, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages to service providers of a company the ability to track customer movements and precise location within a facility so that they can tailor or modify service offerings. (¶ 0122-0126)
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, Greenberger, and Kusens discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein to obtain the unique identifier (¶ 0311: Crutchfield discloses the shopper may be identified with a unique identifier that serves to distinguish each shopper from other visitors or customers of the retailer.) comprises causing the system to:
detect, based on a near field communication (NFC), that the wireless mobile device is proximate to a service device associated with the service agent at the service environment (¶ 0087, 0313: Crutchfield discloses the shopper may visit by coming into or near one of the retailer’s stores, stands, and kiosks. The shoppers presence in or near physical retail location may be detected.),
wherein the NFC is between the wireless mobile device and the service device (¶ 0087, 0313: Crutchfield discloses NFC compatible receivers at the vendor location receive customer information transmitted by the customer’s NFC enabled devices.); and
identify the unique identifier of subscriber of the wireless mobile device based on the NFC. (¶ 0087-0088: Crutchfield discloses identifying customers by digitally communicating the stored information to NFC receivers at the store. Mobile devices can support wireless communications such as NFC that can communicate the customer identification to the vendor.)
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, Greenberger, and Kusens discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein to obtain the unique identifier (¶ 0087 - Crutchfield) comprises causing the system to:
cause activation of a radio frequency identification (RFID) module integrated in the wireless mobile device (¶ 0087, 0306: Crutchfield discloses vendors may identify customer with wireless communication devices such as RFID. These devices may be active devices that digitally communicate and exchange data between devices in close proximity or from afar.); identify the unique identifier of subscriber of the wireless mobile device upon entering a predefined zone of an RFID tag located in the service environment. (¶ 0087, 0306: Crutchfield discloses vendors may use in-store wireless technology such as RFID tags or a more active type of wireless chip into displayed merchandise. The RFID tags may emit signals to or allow detection by the shopper’s device so that the shopper can more easily locate pieces of merchandise in the store.)
With respect to claims 8 and 16, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, Greenberger, and Kusens discloses the system and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media,
wherein to generate the personalized interaction guide (¶ 0153: Petrey discloses the cloud-based computing system generates a PARCO for the prospective customer.), comprises causing the system to:
input a subscriber insight for the subscriber into the LLM (¶ 0149, 0151-0152: Petrey discloses an AI model, i.e., large language model, trained to receive first information as an input. The first information can include any information stored in the customer profile. The information can also include updated customer activity information, web, social, or mobile device activity information);
retrieve a tone prediction for a recent interaction associated with the subscriber insight (¶ 0159: Petrey discloses the cloud-based computing system considers when an employee of the retail store is underperforming relative to sales expectations.);
order multiple subscriber insights including the subscriber insight among based on the tone prediction (¶ 0159: Petrey discloses the PARCO can be customized to include recommended sales tactics.); and receive, as output of the LLM, the ranked list of the multiple subscriber insights. (¶ 0149, 0151-0152, 0159, 0181: Petrey discloses Craig is guided by the information provided in the PARCO. The PARCO can include instruction about the order in which the customized offerings should be presented to the prospective customer. The customized offerings can be prioritized from the most beneficial to the least beneficial.)
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, Greenberger, and Kusens discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein to generate the personalized interaction guide (¶ 0153: Petrey discloses the cloud-based computing system generates a PARCO for the prospective customer.) comprises causing the system to:
input a subscriber insight for the subscriber into the LLM (¶ 0149, 0151-0152: Petrey discloses an AI model, i.e., large language model, trained to receive first information as an input. The first information can include any information stored in the customer profile. The information can also include updated customer activity information, web, social, or mobile device activity information);
retrieve a date and a time of a recent interaction associated with the subscriber insight (¶ 0149, 0151-0152: Petrey discloses the information also includes updated customer activity information); and
order multiple subscriber insights including the subscriber insight based on the date and the time (¶ 0149, 0151-0152, 0159, 0181 - Petrey); and receive, as output of the LLM, the ranked list of the multiple subscriber insights. (¶ 0149, 0151-0152, 0159, 0181: Petrey discloses Craig is guided by the information provided in the PARCO. The PARCO can include instruction about the order in which the customized offerings should be presented to the prospective customer. The customized offerings can be prioritized from the most beneficial to the least beneficial.)
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, Greenberger, and Kusens discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein to generate the personalized interaction guide (¶ 0153: Petrey discloses the cloud-based computing system generates a PARCO for the prospective customer.) comprises causing the system to:
input a subscriber insight for the subscriber into the LLM (¶ 0149, 0151-0152: Petrey discloses an AI model, i.e., large language model, trained to receive first information as an input. The first information can include any information stored in the customer profile. The information can also include updated customer activity information, web, social, or mobile device activity information);
retrieve a date and a time of a recent interaction associated with the subscriber insight (¶ 0149, 0151-0152: Petrey discloses the information can also include updated customer activity information); and order multiple subscriber insights including the subscriber insight based on the date and the time (¶ 0149, 0151-0152, 0159, 0181); and receive, as output of the LLM, the ranked list of the multiple subscriber insights. (¶ 0149, 0151-0152, 0159, 0181: Petrey discloses Craig is guided by the information provided in the PARCO. The PARCO can include instruction about the order in which the customized offerings should be presented to the prospective customer. The customized offerings can be prioritized from the most beneficial to the least beneficial.)
With respect to claims 11 and 17, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, Greenberger, and Kusens discloses the system and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media,
wherein to generate the personalized interaction guide (¶ 0153: Petrey discloses the cloud-based computing system generates a PARCO for the prospective customer.) comprises causing the system to:
input a subscriber insight for the subscriber into the LLM (¶ 0149, 0151-0152: Petrey discloses an AI model, i.e., large language model, trained to receive first information as an input. The first information can include any information stored in the customer profile. The information can also include updated customer activity information, web, social, or mobile device activity information);
retrieve a numerical value for a recent interaction associated with the subscriber insight (¶ 0143: Petrey discloses using a similarity threshold to identify customer information.); and order multiple subscriber insights including the subscriber insight based on the numerical value (¶ 0149, 0151-0152, 0159, 0181); and
receive, as output of the LLM, the ranked list of the multiple subscriber insights. (¶ 0149, 0151-0152, 0159, 0181 – see Petrey); and receive, as output of the LLM, the ranked list of the multiple subscriber insights. (¶ 0149, 0151-0152, 0159, 0181: Petrey discloses Craig is guided by the information provided in the PARCO. The PARCO can include instruction about the order in which the customized offerings should be presented to the prospective customer. The customized offerings can be prioritized from the most beneficial to the least beneficial.)
With respect to claims 12 and 18, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, Greenberger, and Kusens discloses the system and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media,
wherein the personalized interaction guide is modifiable at a service device in the service environment by the service agent of the service administered by the operator of the telecommunications network to update or correct information based on an in-person interaction between the subscriber and the service agent. (¶ 0113, 0138, 0182: Crutchfield discloses a sales representative may also supplement the customer information collected from the customer. The sales representative may enter this information onto his or her mobile device which may then be communicated directly to the vendor’s database for making a customized recommendation of products or solutions.)
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, Greenberger, and Kusens discloses the method of claim 19 further comprising, prior to receiving the user data:
detect presence of the user device at the indoor environment (¶ 0272-0273: Crutchfield discloses beacons are used to detect the shopper’s presence at a retail location and can be used to sense the shopper’s mobile device.);
request the identifier from the user device (¶ 0088, 0090, 0092: Crutchfield discloses mobile devices can support wireless communications that can communicate the customer identification to the vendor.); and in response to the request, receive the identifier from the user device. (¶ 0088, 0090, 0092: Crutchfield discloses the mobile device may then automatically communicate the customer’s identification information to a receiver or server at the vendor.)
10. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crutchfield in view of Petrey in view of Greenberger in view of Kusens in further view of Koslow (US 2024/0112144 A1).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, Greenberger, and Kusens does not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
In the same field of endeavor, the Koslow reference is related to using large language models for managing one-to-one meetings (¶ 0303-0304)
wherein the LLM is caused to:
generate a summary of a recent interaction between the subscriber and the service administered by the operator of the telecommunications network (¶ 0303-0305: discloses a large language model can moderate and summarize feedback from conversations.); generate an analysis of the recent interaction based on natural language processing (NLP) and tone detection (¶ 0378: discloses automated moderation of feedback via NLP sentiment analysis and rules engines may be implemented in the feedback module.); and include the summary and the analysis of the recent interaction in the personalized interaction guide. (¶ 0303-0305: discloses the large language model can analyze the profiles and context for the meeting participants and apply its knowledge of effective one-on-one discussions to provide personalized recommendations optimized for those individuals. It can also generate summaries highlighting the most constructive feedback and relevant themes. This enables managers to more efficiently digest and respond to group feedback.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, Greenberger, and Kusens to implement the large language modeling techniques of Koslow, to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Koslow, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages to managers/employees to more efficiently digest and respond to feedback. (¶ 0303-0305)
11. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crutchfield in view of Petrey in view of Greenberger in view of Kusens in further view of Dixon (US 11,715,084 B1).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, Greenberger, Kusens does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1 further caused to:
However, the Dixon reference teaches:
cause activation of a service device in the service environment to present a 2D barcode to the wireless mobile device (col. 21:10-20: discloses a QR code or other similar code at the kiosk or bank teller computing device to confirm presence.),
wherein the 2D barcode codes a uniform resource locator (URL) to a webpage for the service administered by the operator of the telecommunications network cause the wireless mobile device (col. 19:29-34: discloses the user’s device may be automatically directed to a webpage.) to, upon scanning the 2D barcode (col. 19:4-13, col. 21:10-20: discloses the user can scan a QR code or similar code posted in a strategic location at the entrance of the facility and/or teller queue),
present a user interface including a request that prompts a user of the wireless mobile device to present the unique identifier. (col. 14:34-52: discloses the user may be asked or required to present a unique identifier. col. 19:35-46: discloses prompting the user to provide authentication information into a mobile application on the user’s device.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, Greenberger, and Kusens, to include techniques that cause activation of a service device in the service environment to present a 2D barcode to the wireless mobile device, wherein the 2D barcode codes a uniform resource locator (URL) to a webpage for the service administered by the operator of the telecommunications network cause the wireless mobile device to, upon scanning the 2D barcode, present a user interface including a request that prompts a user of the wireless device to present the unique identifier, as disclosed by Dixon to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Dixon, the motivation for the combination would have been to authenticate and confirm presence of a user at a particular location. (col. 23:56-67)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “Without conceding that the previously pending claims were directed to an abstract idea, the claims have been amended and do not recite an abstract idea. The Examiner has alleged that the claims are directed to commercial interactions, managing personal behavior, and mental processes (see Office Action, pg. 3). Amended claim 1 now recites that the system is caused to "receive a signal generated by the wireless mobile device in response to a short-range beacon signal broadcast at the service environment, wherein the signal includes an indication of a signal strength value for the short-range beacon signal" and "detect the wireless mobile device associated with a subscriber within a micro-location of the service environment based on the signal strength value meeting or exceeding a threshold value." Receiving wireless beacon signals, measuring signal strength values, and comparing those values against thresholds to determine micro-location proximity to a service device are not commercial interactions, mental processes, or managing personal behavior. A person cannot perform these operations mentally or with pen and paper. The amended claims are not directed to actions that can practically be performed by a human service representative because the claims require receiving wireless beacon-based signals, evaluating signal-strength values against threshold values, and determining micro-location proximity based on those signal measurements.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Merely reciting “a system” in the claim does not preclude the identified limitations under Step 2A Prong One from being considered in the certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes groupings. It is important to note the inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability. The response focuses on a subset of limitations recited in the claim and concedes the steps cannot be performed in the human mind which does not alter the analysis. The Examiner asserts the limitations of “receive” and “detect” were considered under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. For example, these steps perform the data transmission/data gathering operations necessary to be performed between a beacon device and a subscriber mobile device to verify the location/identity of the subscriber. The beacon device and subscriber mobile device behave in their expected manner to transmit or receive data about the subscriber’s location/identity. Applicant’s original Specification is silent and Applicant does not purport to have invented any beacons or the generic beacon functionalities. See MPEP 2106.05(a) Thus, Applicant cannot rely on these generic features related to beacon-based technology alone to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Even if the claims were deemed to recite a judicial exception, the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. As discussed above, amended claim 1 recites automated beacon-based micro-location detection using signal strength thresholds. Amended claim 1 does not merely automate a known business practice. The claim recites a system that automatically detects a wireless mobile device based on a short-range beacon signal and signal- strength threshold determination, automatically obtains a subscriber identifier in response to that detection, retrieves subscriber-specific interaction data, and generates service-agent guidance using both the subscriber data and service environment data based on the detected micro-location. These operations implement a technically implemented proximity-detection workflow in which subscriber identification and retrieval of subscriber information are initiated by wireless signal processing rather than customer action. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The response indicates the claim recites “automated beacon-based micro-location detection using signal strength thresholds”. At best, the statements from the response with respect to “automatically” here are an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h) In the instant case, the courts have previously held the utility of the method does not make it eligible. See Univ. of Fla.Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (automated data synthesis technology did not make claims non-abstract even if it produced "life altering consequences"); In re Elbaum, No. 2023-1418, 2023 WL 8794636, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023) (an abstract idea's tax benefits and usefulness did not confer eligibility); In re Mahapatra, 842 F. App'x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he fact that an abstract idea may have beneficial uses does not mean that claims embodying the abstract idea are
rendered patent eligible."). In other words, merely because the claim recites processes for automated location-based tracking and notification of a subscriber’s location/identity does not confer patent eligibility under the two-part analysis. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Examiner cited Weisner v. Google LLC, 51 F.4th 1073, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2022), for the proposition that "collecting information on a user's movements and location history" constitutes an abstract idea (see Office Action, pg. 29). The amended claims are distinguishable. The claims do not merely collect location history. Weisner involved collecting and analyzing a user's historical location information to create a digital travel log. By contrast, amended claim 1 recites real-time signal-based determination that a wireless mobile device is located within a micro-location proximate to a service device, based on measured signal strength values associated with a short-range beacon signal. The claimed micro-location determination is used to trigger subsequent system operations, including identifier acquisition, subscriber data retrieval, and LLM- based guide generation, and is not merely collected as information about a user's movements. The system performs automated wireless signal processing, including receiving a signal generated by a wireless mobile device in response to a short-range beacon signal and evaluating the signal strength value against a threshold, to determine that the device is within a micro-location proximate to a specific service device associated with a service agent. This is a specific technical mechanism for micro-location proximity detection, not generic location tracking or data collection.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The response alleges several features including “real-time”, “micro-location”, “automated” support eligibility, however, the specificity of the presently recited techniques does not automatically make the claims eligible. The courts have previously held, claims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The Applicant’s Specification is silent with respect to technical details or improvements related to using the micro-location. Applicant does not purport to have invented the use of micro-location. The features for “real-time” and “automated” are an attempt to generically link the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. Merely automating a process for tracking a subscriber/service agent location/identity within a service environment does provide a technological improvement to computer functionality or any other computer technology field. Here, Applicant is claiming result-oriented functions but does not claim how to achieve the results in a non-abstract way. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Examiner has also alleged that the additional elements (e.g., hardware processor, memory, wireless mobile device, LLM, display device) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, relying on court decisions indicating that "receiving or transmitting data over a network" and "presenting offers and gathering statistics" are conventional functions. The amended claims, however, recite more than these generic functions.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The description of the additional elements in light of the original Specification [Figs. 1, 8, ¶ 0040, 0057] evidences that the additional elements are generic computers and components used to perform generic data processing of the abstract idea on a generic computer system. Such generic computer implementation does not impose a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer or generic computer components to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Amended claim 1 recites "receive a signal generated by the wireless mobile device in response to a short-range beacon signal broadcast at the service environment" and "detect the wireless mobile device associated with a subscriber within a micro-location of the service environment based on the signal strength value meeting or exceeding a threshold value." The Examiner has not identified evidence demonstrating that receiving a signal generated in response to a short-range beacon signal and determining a micro-location based on a signal-strength threshold was well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time of filing.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Here, the Applicant argues that the previous rejection failed to provide sufficient evidence. The MPEP 2106.07 provides guidance that the Examiner may support a finding that an additional element or combination of elements may be supported by a citation to one or more court decisions discussed from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements. This section of the MPEP indicates that “receiving and transmitting data over a network, i.e., using the internet to gather data, have been recognized by courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional. The Office Action references the court decisions from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), including citing Symantec, TLI communications, OIP Techs, buySAFE in support of the rejection. As such, the previous analysis under Step 2B was indeed proper. The additional elements in claims do not supply an inventive concept. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Amended claim 1 recites a specific event-driven sequence of operations. The system first receives a signal generated in response to a short-range beacon signal, determines that a signal-strength threshold has been satisfied, detects the wireless mobile device within a micro-location, obtains a subscriber identifier in response to that detection, retrieves subscriber data based on the identifier, and then generates a personalized interaction guide using both subscriber data and
service-environment data. This sequence is initiated by technical signal-processing operations rather than by customer action or human judgment.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Here, the Applicant argues the sequence of operations by restating limitations from the claim. At best, the reply merely further describes or narrows how the abstract idea is to be performed which does not lead towards patent eligibility. The goal of the claimed invention to provide a "humanly comprehensible" amount of information useful for users, i.e., service agent. The specificity of the presently recited techniques do not describe or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. The ordering of steps adds generic location-based service functionality, i.e., signal-processing operations, to the claim. For example, the ordered sequence performs the data gathering/data transmission necessary to locate the subscriber and aid with performing the abstract idea. When viewed individually and as an ordered combination the recited limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Applicant further argues “The Examiner has alleged that the LLM is used in its "ordinary capacity" to aid in performing the abstract idea (see Office Action, pg. 29). The LLM as recited in amended claim 1 is constrained by specific inputs: subscriber data indicative of historical interactions across multiple service channels of the telecommunications network and service environment data derived from the micro-location detection. The LLM produces a specific output, namely a ranked list of subscriber insights and a personalized interaction guide for the service agent based on subscriber data and service-environment data associated with the detected micro-location. Accordingly, the LLM is not merely invoked as a generic AI tool but is used within a particular technological workflow initiated by beacon-based micro-location detection.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Here, the Applicant argues the operations performed by the LLM are specific. The claimed invention remains ineligible under Prong Two of the two-part analysis. In the instant case, the specific type of data/information being collected for input or generated for output does not make the claim any less abstract or alter the analysis at Prong Two. The large language model (LLM) was considered an additional element recited by the claimed invention.
Turning to the Specification in [¶ 0057]:
A language model may use a neural network (typically a DNN) to perform natural language processing (NLP) tasks. A language model may be trained to model how words relate to each other in a textual sequence, based on probabilities. A language model may contain hundreds of thousands of learned parameters or in the case of a large language model (LLM) may contain millions or billions of learned parameters or more. As non-limiting examples, a language model can generate text, translate text, summarize text, answer questions, write code (e.g., Phyton, JavaScript, or other programming languages), classify text (e.g., to identify spam emails), create content for various purposes (e.g., social media content, factual content, or marketing content), or create personalized content for a particular individual or group of individuals. Language models can also be used for chatbots (e.g., virtual assistance).
As can be seen from the support from the disclosure, the large language model (LLM) is described in a general manner as the passages merely discuss different tasks in which the model may be used. Applicant does not purport to have invented or improved operation of the LLM. In light of the specification the large language model recited in the claim is being operated in its ordinary or normal capacity to aid in performing the abstract idea. The Specification lacks a finding that the large language model involves any technical improvements to the functioning of a computer itself or any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a) Thus, the large language model (LLM) in this case cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Independent claims 14 and 19 have been amended to recite analogous limitations specifying the beacon-based detection mechanism and signal strength threshold determination. For at least the reasons discussed above with respect to amended claim 1, independent claims 14 and 19 likewise integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Section 101 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-20 should be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Contrary to the remarks, independent claims 14 and 19 recite limitations substantially similar to the limitations recited in claim 1, thus the limitations are being held rejected under the same grounds/rationales. Also, applicant's arguments with respect to claims dependent claims fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the combination of limitations and additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights