DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 01/09/2026. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1, 3, and 13-20 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 .
Previous Claim Objections
1. The Examiner respectfully withdraws the previous claim objections for claims 15-18 per the amendments.
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.
Claim 1 which is representative of claims 14 and 19 recites:
“detect…a subscriber within a micro-location of the service environment”, “wherein the micro-location is determined to be proximate to the service agent”, “in response to detecting…associated with the subscriber”, “obtain a unique identifier of a subscriber”, “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;”, “input the retrieved subscriber data and service environment data based on the detected micro-location”, “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;”, “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;”
The limitations as drafted under the broadest reasonable interpretation cover processes for monitoring the location of a subscriber, retrieving subscriber data, generating a ranked list of subscriber insights, and outputting a personalized guide for a service agent to interact with the subscriber encompasses 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 “detect”, “in response to detecting”, “obtain”, “retrieve”, “input”, “generate”, “receive as output” in the context of the claim describe commercial interactions (such as advertising, sales activities, business relations) that advertisers and companies typically perform to understand subscriber data/behavior prior to engaging with their subscriber. Next, the limitations describe managing personal behavior or interactions between people because the series of steps relate to facilitating and organizing interactions necessary for a service agent to engage with the subscriber. Lastly, the limitations of “input”, “generate” and “receive as output” in the context of the claim describe mental processes for collecting and comparing known information about the subscriber and/or agent, which are acts 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, the system comprising:”, “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 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: “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” adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data output/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, the system comprising:”, “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 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 “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” was 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, and Versata Dev. Group, Inc court decisions which indicate “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “presenting offers and gathering statistics” and “arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price” 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 further view of Greenberger (US 2019/0362406 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)
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:
receive a signal generated by the wireless mobile device in response to receiving a short-range beacon signal broadcast at the service environment (¶ 0087, 0272: Crutchfield discloses RFID or NFC compatible receivers at the vendor location receive customer identification information transmitted by the customers NFC or RFID enabled ); wherein the signal includes an indication of a signal strength value for the short-range beacon signal (¶ 0087, 0091, 0273: Crutchfield discloses detection range of a retail store), and 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);
determine that the signal strength value meets or exceeds a threshold value (¶ 0087, 0091, 0273), wherein the threshold value is indicative of a micro-location of the wireless mobile device in the service environment (¶ 0087, 0091-0092, 0273: Crutchfield discloses a shopper with his or her beacon compatible device comes within transmission or detection range of a retail store the shopper’s presence may be sensed and related activity data identified.);
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.)
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:
receive a signal generated by the wireless mobile device in response to receiving a short-range beacon signal broadcast at the service 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.);
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 (¶ 0092, 0273: Crutchfield discloses detection range of a retail store); 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.)
With respect to claim 4, 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:
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 and Greenberger 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 and Greenberger 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 langue 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 and Greenberger 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 langue 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 - 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 and Greenberger 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 langue 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 and Greenberger 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 langue 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: 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); 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 and Greenberger 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 and Greenberger 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 further view of Koslow (US 2024/0112144 A1).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Crutchfield and Petrey 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, and Greenberger 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 further view of Dixon (US 11,715,084 B1).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Crutchfield, Petrey, and Greenberger 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, and Greenberger, 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 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “Amended claim 1 recites a system that performs a sequence of concrete, technology-anchored operations within a physical service environment, rather than merely organizing human activity or presenting information. The system first detects a subscriber's wireless mobile device within a micro-location of the service environment that is determined to be proximate to a service device associated with a service agent. This detection anchors the claimed operations to a real-world, in-person service interaction occurring at a specific physical location, rather than an abstract or purely informational workflow.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the two-part analysis. Merely reciting the use of additional elements (such as a system, a wireless mobile device) in a claim does not preclude the limitations from being within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The physical service environment is considered be a business or storefront for telecommunication network provider, thus generally linking the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use but does not alter the analysis. As for the step of detecting recited in the claim, the limitation is collecting and recording location information about the customer. As discussed in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility - claims to “collecting information on a user's movements and location history and electronically record[ing] that data” (i.e., “creating a digital travel log”), Weisner v. Google LLC, 51 F.4th 1073, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Under the USPTO's guidance, this is an example of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “In response to detecting the wireless mobile device, the system obtains a unique identifier of the subscriber and retrieves subscriber data indicative of historical interactions with a telecommunications service. Importantly, the identifier acquisition and data retrieval are triggered by the physical presence of the device in the service environment, ensuring that the system dynamically adapts to real-time service conditions instead of relying on preexisting or static user information. This event-driven operation enables the system to tailor subsequent processing to the specific subscriber and service context currently being encountered.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Prong One of the two-part analysis. The fact that the system uses [a unique identifier to retrieve subscriber data] which may be used to make a process more efficient, however, does not necessarily render an abstract idea any less abstract. The Specification makes clear the unique identifier may be (an account or phone number) The claim language does not provide any specific showing of what is inventive about the identifier or about the technology being used to obtain and process it. Thus, the unique identifier cannot be relied upon to provide an inventive concept. Nor does the fact that the events are being processed in real-time take the limitations being recited in claim out of the abstract idea realm. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The retrieved subscriber data is then input, together with service environment data based on the detected micro-location, into a large language model. By constraining the inputs to both subscriber interaction history and environment-specific data derived from the physical service location, the system uses the large language model in a technically limited and context-specific manner. The large language model generates a ranked list of subscriber insights that is directly tied to the subscriber's prior interactions with the telecommunications service and the current service environment, rather than producing generic or untethered recommendations. The system further receives, as output from the large language model, a personalized interaction guide that includes instructions generated for use by a service agent located in the service environment, and causes display of the personalized interaction guide on a display device associated with the service agent.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, 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 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 for. Thus, 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 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 agues “These operations improve the technical operation of an in-store telecommunications service system by enabling service agents to interact with subscribers using dynamically generated, environment-specific guidance that is presented through a dedicated service device during the interaction.” Accordingly, amended claim 1 recites specific technological operations that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by improving the functioning of a telecommunications service system operating in a physical service environment. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Applicant therefore respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and that the Section 101 rejection should be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, at best the operations being performed may recite an improved abstract idea in managing data and interactions between a service agent and a subscriber. There are no purported improvements in the generic computing equipment or artificial intelligence technology (i.e., LLM) being used to perform the abstract idea. Here, the remarks mainly rely upon the particular technological environment or field of use which does not add an inventive or provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Relying upon computers to perform tasks more quickly or efficiently as is the case here does not lead towards eligibility. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Independent claims 14 and 19 were amended to correspond in scope with amended claim 1 and recite analogous limitations in the context of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a method, respectively. Accordingly, 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. Applicant respectfully submits that the Section 101 rejection of claims 14 and 19 should therefore be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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. Also, applicant's arguments with respect to claims 14 and 19 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
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 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
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights