DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 8 June 2026 in regard to application no. 18/603,908. Claims 6, 7, 13 and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14 and 16-20 are pending and are considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a system (machine), method (process), or non-transitory computer readable medium (manufacture). The claim(s) recite(s) generating location data related to a transaction, receiving information relating to previous transactions, locating a merchant within a particular distance of the received location represented by the location data using modeling, and providing a notification to a user based on the available information.
Providing information about transactions is a commercial activity, so the claims recite commercial interactions, one of the "certain methods of organizing human activity" deemed abstract. Further, in the absence of computers, these are steps that can be performed mentally. A person can be aware of her own location, can look at maps to determine nearby merchants, and can visit a merchant; the merchant can provide, based on e.g. paper records, information about the person's previous transactions at the merchant's location; distances can be estimated by observation. Modeling is a typical human mental process, simply using simplified information to represent other information. None of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology beyond the use of paper records.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of generic, networked computers. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only manipulate data pertaining to the locations of users and merchants, and transactions between them, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a "transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing", MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea "in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment", MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
Claims 1 and 15 collectively include a processor and memory storing instructions and access to some kind of wireless network via a wireless beacon. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification is explicit, ¶ 110, that nothing more than a "general purpose computer" is required, which encompasses a generic computer.
It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Wireless beacons were well-understood, routine and conventional before the filing of the claimed invention. For example, Trompower (U.S. Patent No. 6,215,982), whose application was filed over a quarter century before the priority date of the present invention, could disclose that, by that early date, an “access point” through which “wireless communications may occur” was “conventional”, [Col. 4, lines 24-26] and could be used in “retail stores”. [Col. 1, lines 15-17]
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination - a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps - do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2, 4 and 11 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 3, 5, 12 and 14 simply provide for further output, and claims 8, 9, 16, 17, 19 and 20 simply provide for further input and output.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 - 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance", 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tietzen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0412273, filed 6 June 2023) in view of Isaacson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0351474) further in view of Gebhardt et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0355045).
In-line citations are to Tietzen.
With regard to Claim 1:
Tietzen teaches: A system comprising…
a processing circuit comprising memory and one or more processors, [0217; "one or more processors" and "storage media" storing "instructions"; 0219; the media may be in the form of "memory"] the processing circuit configured to:
responsive to receiving an indication of a wireless signal transmitted between a user device and the… beacon, [0207; an access point reads on a beacon] generate location data relating to a person associated with transaction data, the location data associated with a location; [0125; "location information" associated with a "customer" may be determined "during or prior to any transaction" such as during a registration process]
receive the transaction data relating to the person, wherein the transaction data corresponds to historical transactions of the person; [0026; information about an account holder's transactions is tracked for "each transaction for which the date and time of the corresponding authorization response are within a predetermined time period"]
model, using one or more models, the location data and the transaction data to generate merchant match data, wherein the merchant match data indicates a merchant within a distance threshold of the location and being associated with at least one of the historical transactions... [0126; merchants may be selected whose "postal code" is "within a predetermined proximity" of a customer's home location; 0115; modeling is applied to locations; 0107; purchases may have been delivered to the home] and
generate and provide, to a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device, a notification interface based on the merchant match data, wherein the notification interface comprises an interactive element... [0155; the user may be using a "cellular telephone" or "personal digital assistant"; 0085; as part of a "check-out process" a user views an "electronic shopping cart" provided by a merchant which they can use to complete purchases]
Tietzen does not explicitly teach that the notification includes information associated with the at least one of the historical transactions related to the merchant, or that a distance threshold corresponds to a range of the wireless signal, but in addition to the latter being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Isaacson teaches a shopping system [title] in which a user makes a purchase. [0176] An application can interact with a user once the user enters "the range of a Wi-Fi signal" for a merchant. [0571] The system makes use of a "purchase history" from the user's "purchase account" with a particular merchant. [0063] It may provide a "list of items" from which a user may make a purchase decision. [0159] The items on the list may be chosen based on past purchases. [0174] Isaacson and Tietzen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for facilitating purchase transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed transaction to combine the teaching of Isaacson with that of Tietzen in order to simplify purchasing, as taught by Isaacson; [0012] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply interpreting data in the manner of Isaacson rather than that of Tietzen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
In this and the subsequent claims, that a "distance threshold corresponds to a range of [a] wireless signal" is an inherent feature of numbers and so is considered but given no patentable weight. Both the distance and range can be expressed as numeric values, and any two numeric values have a correspondence; so for example, given two numbers A and B, A might be less than B, more than B, or the same as B, any of which is a correspondence. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Tietzen does not explicitly teach that one or more models are selected based on the transaction data (which, as explained below, is of no patentable significance) or that a system includes a wireless beacon… configured to at least one of emit or receive a wireless signal, (that it is “installed at a merchant location of a merchant” is nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts to it neither structure nor functionality and so is considered but given no patentable weight), but these are known in the art. Gebhardt teaches a product discovery system [title] in which an “order history [] can be combined with characteristics supplied by previous purchasers to train a machine learning model”; the model is used which reads on it being selected. [0054] A network may “include an access point 554 that enables wireless communications (e.g., WiFi) with [a] mobile device”. [0050] The system may allow a user to select and purchase a product from a site, [0022] which reads on the site being a location of a merchant. Gebhardt and Tietzen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for facilitating retail transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gebhardt with that of Tietzen in order to improve a user experience, as taught by Gebhardt; [0004] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using the access point of Gebhardt as a beacon in place of, or in addition to, Tietzen’s less-specific access point and making a determination in the manner of Gebhardt rather than that of Tietzen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
In this and the subsequent claims, as the claim does not positively recite selecting a model among the steps of the process, the model could be selected outside of (e.g. before) the claimed process; therefore the manner of selection is of no patentable significance as it purports to limit a step outside the scope of the claimed invention and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, wherein the interactive element comprises a list of items included in one of the historical transactions related to the merchant. [Isaacson, 0159, 0174 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 3:
The system of claim 1, wherein the notification interface further comprises an actionable item associated with one of the historical transactions; and
wherein in response to receiving a selection of the actionable item from the user device, the processing circuit is further configured to:
generate and provide, to the GUI of the user device, a list of items included in the one of the historical transactions. [id.]
With regard to Claim 8:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuit is further configured to:
provide, to a merchant computing system associated with the merchant, the merchant match data indicative of the merchant; [0119; the system sends user related data to the merchant's "Point of Service terminal" as a part of a purchase authorization]
receive, from the merchant computing system, an offer associated with the person, the offer relating to the at least one of the historical transactions related to the merchant; [0119; the merchant has input the customer's information including transaction data into the POS terminal] and
generate and provide, to the GUI of the user device, an offer interface corresponding to the offer. [0121-22; the user is given the option of making a charitable donation based on the transaction]
With regard to Claim 9:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuit is further configured to:
receive, from a merchant computing system associated with the merchant, offer data corresponding to offers relating to the merchant; [0023; such offers are sent]
generate recommendation data corresponding to at least one of the offers relating to the at least one of the historical transactions; [Isaacson, 0159, 0174 as cited above in regard to claim 1] and
generate and provide, to the GUI of the user device, a recommendation interface corresponding to the at least one of the offers. [0069; the system provides "suggestions that are applicable to the user's active requests"]
With regard to Claim 10:
Tietzen teaches: A method, comprising:
responsive to receiving an indication of a wireless signal transmitted between a user device and a… beacon [0207; an access point reads on a beacon] generating, by a processing circuit, [0217; "one or more processors"] location data relating to a person associated with transaction data, the location data associated with a location… [0125; "location information" associated with a "customer" may be determined "during or prior to any transaction" such as during a registration process]
receiving the transaction data relating to the person, wherein the transaction data corresponds to historical transactions of the person; [0026; information about an account holder's transactions is tracked for "each transaction for which the date and time of the corresponding authorization response are within a predetermined time period"]
modeling, using one or more models, the location data and the transaction data to generate merchant match data, wherein the merchant match data indicates a merchant within a distance threshold of the location and being associated with at least one of the historical transactions... [0126; merchants may be selected whose "postal code" is "within a predetermined proximity" of a customer's home location; 0115; modeling is applied to locations; 0107; purchases may have been delivered to the home] and
generating and providing, to a graphical user interface (GUI) of the user device, a notification interface based on the merchant match data, wherein the notification interface comprises an interactive element... [0155; the user may be using a "cellular telephone" or "personal digital assistant"; 0085; as part of a "check-out process" a user views an "electronic shopping cart" provided by a merchant which they can use to complete purchases]
Tietzen does not explicitly teach that the notification includes information associated with the at least one of the historical transactions related to the merchant, or that a distance threshold corresponds to a range of the wireless signal, but in addition to the latter being of no patentable significance as explained above, it is known in the art. Isaacson teaches a shopping system [title] in which a user makes a purchase. [0176] An application can interact with a user once the user enters "the range of a Wi-Fi signal" for a merchant. [0571] The system makes use of a "purchase history" from the user's "purchase account" with a particular merchant. [0063] It may provide a "list of items" from which a user may make a purchase decision. [0159] The items on the list may be chosen based on past purchases. [0174] Isaacson and Tietzen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for facilitating purchase transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed transaction to combine the teaching of Isaacson with that of Tietzen in order to simplify purchasing, as taught by Isaacson; [0012] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply interpreting data in the manner of Isaacson rather than that of Tietzen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Tietzen does not explicitly teach that one or more models are selected based on the transaction data (which, as explained above, is of no patentable significance) or that a system includes a wireless beacon… configured to at least one of emit or receive a wireless signal, (that it is “installed at a merchant location of a merchant” is nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts to it neither structure nor functionality and so is considered but given no patentable weight), but these are known in the art. Gebhardt teaches a product discovery system [title] in which an “order history [] can be combined with characteristics supplied by previous purchasers to train a machine learning model”; the model is used which reads on it being selected. [0054] A network may “include an access point 554 that enables wireless communications (e.g., WiFi) with [a] mobile device”. [0050] The system may allow a user to select and purchase a product from a site, [0022] which reads on the site being a location of a merchant. Gebhardt and Tietzen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for facilitating retail transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gebhardt with that of Tietzen in order to improve a user experience, as taught by Gebhardt; [0004] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using the access point of Gebhardt as a beacon in place of, or in addition to, Tietzen’s less-specific access point and making a determination in the manner of Gebhardt rather than that of Tietzen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 11:
The method of claim 10, wherein the interactive element comprises a list of items included in one of the historical transactions related to the merchant. [Isaacson, 0159, 0174 as cited above in regard to claim 10]
With regard to Claim 12:
The method of claim 10, wherein the notification interface further comprises an actionable item associated with one of the historical transactions, and the method further comprises:
receiving a selection of the actionable item from the user device; and generating and providing, to the GUI of the user device, a list of items included in the one of the historical transactions. [id.]
With regard to Claim 16:
The method of claim 10, further comprising:
providing, to a merchant computing system associated with the merchant, the merchant match data indicative of the merchant; [0119; the system sends user related data to the merchant's "Point of Service terminal" as a part of a purchase authorization]
receiving, from the merchant computing system, an offer associated with the person, the offer relating to the at least one of the historical transactions related to the merchant; [0119; the merchant has input the customer's information including transaction data into the POS terminal] and
generating and providing, to the GUI of the user device, an offer interface corresponding to the offer. [0121-22; the user is given the option of making a charitable donation based on the transaction]
With regard to Claim 17:
The method of claim 10, further comprising:
receiving, from a merchant computing system associated with the merchant, offer data corresponding to offers relating to the merchant; [0023; such offers are sent]
generating recommendation data corresponding to at least one of the offers relating to the at least one of the historical transactions; [Isaacson, 0159, 0174 as cited above in regard to claim 10] and
generating and providing, to the GUI of the user device, a recommendation interface corresponding to the at least one of the offers. [0069; the system provides "suggestions that are applicable to the user's active requests"]
With regard to Claim 18:
Tietzen teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processing circuits, cause the one or more processing circuits to perform operations [0217; "one or more processors" and "storage media" storing "instructions"] comprising:
responsive to receiving an indication of a wireless signal transmitted between a user device and a… beacon… [0207; an access point reads on a beacon] generating, by the one or more processing circuits, [0217; "one or more processors"] location data relating to a person associated with transaction data, the location data associated with a location… [0125; "location information" associated with a "customer" may be determined "during or prior to any transaction" such as during a registration process]
receiving the transaction data relating to the person, wherein the transaction data corresponds to historical transactions of the person; [0026; information about an account holder's transactions is tracked for "each transaction for which the date and time of the corresponding authorization response are within a predetermined time period"]
modeling, using one or more models, the location data and the transaction data to generate merchant match data, wherein the merchant match data indicates the merchant within a distance threshold of the location and being associated with at least one of the historical transactions... [0126; merchants may be selected whose "postal code" is "within a predetermined proximity" of a customer's home location; 0115; modeling is applied to locations; 0107; purchases may have been delivered to the home] and
generating and providing, to a graphical user interface (GUI) of the user device, a notification interface based on the merchant match data, wherein the notification interface comprises an interactive element. [0155; the user may be using a "cellular telephone" or "personal digital assistant"; 0085; as part of a "check-out process" a user views an "electronic shopping cart" provided by a merchant which they can use to complete purchases]
Tietzen does not explicitly teach that the notification includes information associated with the at least one of the historical transactions related to the merchant, or that a distance threshold corresponds to a range of the wireless signal, but in addition to the latter being of no patentable significance as explained above, it is known in the art. Isaacson teaches a shopping system [title] in which a user makes a purchase. [0176] An application can interact with a user once the user enters "the range of a Wi-Fi signal" for a merchant. [0571] The system makes use of a "purchase history" from the user's "purchase account" with a particular merchant. [0063] It may provide a "list of items" from which a user may make a purchase decision. [0159] The items on the list may be chosen based on past purchases. [0174] Isaacson and Tietzen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for facilitating purchase transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed transaction to combine the teaching of Isaacson with that of Tietzen in order to simplify purchasing, as taught by Isaacson; [0012] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply interpreting data in the manner of Isaacson rather than that of Tietzen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Tietzen does not explicitly teach that one or more models are selected based on the transaction data (which, as explained above, is of no patentable significance) or that a system includes a wireless beacon… configured to at least one of emit or receive a wireless signal, (that it is “installed at a merchant location of a merchant” is nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts to it neither structure nor functionality and so is considered but given no patentable weight), but these are known in the art. Gebhardt teaches a product discovery system [title] in which an “order history [] can be combined with characteristics supplied by previous purchasers to train a machine learning model”; the model is used which reads on it being selected. [0054] A network may “include an access point 554 that enables wireless communications (e.g., WiFi) with [a] mobile device”. [0050] The system may allow a user to select and purchase a product from a site, [0022] which reads on the site being a location of a merchant. Gebhardt and Tietzen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for facilitating retail transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gebhardt with that of Tietzen in order to improve a user experience, as taught by Gebhardt; [0004] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using the access point of Gebhardt as a beacon in place of, or in addition to, Tietzen’s less-specific access point and making a determination in the manner of Gebhardt rather than that of Tietzen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
As the wireless beacon is not within the scope of the claim, but is merely an external object that communicates with another external object, its characteristics are of no patentable significance and so are considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 19:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the notification interface further comprises an actionable item associated with one of the historical transactions; and
wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving a selection of the actionable item from the user device; and generating and providing, to the GUI of the user device, a list of items included in the one of the historical transactions. [Isaacson, 0159, 0174 as cited above in regard to claim 18]
With regard to Claim 20:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the operations further comprise:
providing, to a merchant computing system associated with the merchant, the merchant match data indicative of the merchant; [0119; the system sends user related data to the merchant's "Point of Service terminal" as a part of a purchase authorization]
receiving, from the merchant computing system, an offer associated with the person, the offer relating to the at least one of the historical transactions related to the merchant; [0119; the merchant has input the customer's information including transaction data into the POS terminal] and
generating and providing, to the GUI of the user device, an offer interface corresponding to the offer. [0121-22; the user is given the option of making a charitable donation based on the transaction]
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tietzen et al. in view of Isaacson et al. further in view of Gebhardt et al. further in view of Bates et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0316343).
With regard to Claim 4:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuit is configured to be triggered to generate the location data responsive to determining that the user device is positioned within the distance threshold of the merchant.
Tietzen, Isaacson and Gebhardt teach the system of claim 1, including generating location data as cited above and that a user is in certain proximity to a merchant, but do not explicitly teach this generating step based on a user device being within a threshold distance, but it is known in the art. Bates teaches a system for changing the operation of a loyalty program based on a user's location. [abstract] It may make "cross promotional offers" with "other merchants" based on an earlier merchant's transactions with a customer. [0217] It may provide information when "customers are inside, proximate to, or en route to particular merchants' stores". [0333] The information may be in the form of a "reward list". [0674] Bates and Tietzen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for making offers based on a location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Bates with that of Tietzen, Isaacson and Bebhardt in order to benefit card issuers, as taught by Bates; [0157] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing output as a result of Bates' condition instead of, or in addition to, that of Tietzen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 5:
The system of claim 4, wherein the merchant is a first merchant, the at least one of the historical transactions is a first of the historical transactions, and the interactive element is a first interactive element;
wherein the merchant match data further indicates a second merchant within the distance threshold of the location and being associated with a second of the historical transactions;
wherein the notification interface further comprises a second interactive element associated with the second of the historical transactions, a first actionable item associated with the first of the historical transactions, and a second actionable item associated with the second of the historical transactions;
wherein in response to receiving a selection of the first actionable item from the user device, the processing circuit is further configured to: generate and provide, to the GUI of the user device, a first list of items included in the first of the historical transactions; and wherein in response to receiving a selection of the second actionable item from the user device, the processing circuit is further configured to: generate and provide, to the GUI of the user device, a second list of items included in the second of the historical transactions. [Bates, as cited above in regard to claim 4]
Much of this claim consists of a mere duplication of parts which is considered but given no patentable weight: interacting with transactions with two merchants rather than one, providing two lists rather than one, and the like. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 14:
The method of claim 10, wherein the merchant is a first merchant, the at least one of the historical transactions is a first of the historical transactions, and the interactive element is a first interactive element;
wherein the merchant match data further indicates a second merchant within the distance threshold of the location and being associated with a second of the historical transactions;
wherein the notification interface further comprises a second interactive element associated with the second of the historical transactions, a first actionable item associated with the first of the historical transactions, and a second actionable item associated with the second of the historical transactions; and
wherein the method further comprises:
responsive to receiving a selection of the first actionable item from the user device, generating and providing, to the GUI of the user device, a first list of items included in the first of the historical transactions; and
responsive to receiving a selection of the second actionable item from the user device, generating and providing, to the GUI of the user device, a second list of items included in the second of the historical transactions. [Bates, as cited above in regard to claim 4]
Much of this claim consists of a mere duplication of parts which is considered but given no patentable weight: interacting with transactions with two merchants rather than one, providing two lists rather than one, and the like. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 June 2026 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to the “mental process” argument, it is clear that claims recite a mental process when the underlying process can be performed mentally, even if it involves computers and data in computer form. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), explain that courts do not “distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”.
In regard to the “certain methods of organizing human activity” argument, the claims recite several steps concerning providing information about commercial transactions, which is both a fundamental business practice and a commercial interaction. The fact that there are additional elements is not dispositive in determining whether the claims recite abstraction; this is considered later in the analysis.
In regard to prong two, the inquiry into whether the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the timing of when to present information to someone is a business problem rather than a technical problem. The Examiner must respectfully disagree that as of 2024 “generic computers do not ubiquitously include means to emit or receive a wireless signal”. By 2024 the number of mobile phones in the world, according to BankMyCell.comi, was 8.31 billion, which was more than the number of people on Earth at that time, and every one of them, in order to function at all, had to both emit and receive a wireless signal.
In regard to step 2B, the “significantly more” inquiry, the Examiner has already pointed out above that the claimed beacon was well-understood, routine and conventional long before the filing of the present invention. The claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 14 and 16-20 in regard to rejections made under § 103 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. In particular, arguments regarding Horesh are moot as Horesh is not used as a basis of any rejection herein, and to the extent the arguments refer to language added by amendment, the Examiner has incorporated the teaching of Gebhardt to meet the additional limitations.
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 SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
i Bankmycell.com/home/research, retrieved 23 June 2026
Prosecution Insights