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 .
Detailed Action
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed 12/02/2025.
Claims 1, 3 – 9, 11 – 15, and 17 – 20, are pending; claims 2, 10, and 16 being presently cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments and remarks of 12/02/2025 have been entered.
Applicant’s drawings submitted 12/02/2025 are accepted.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 17/467,874 and 63/074,629, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claims 1 and 9 recite a private circle including a subset of customers. There is no support within the referenced applications for a private group of customers or the subscriptions and interactions among them. The cited prior applications are expressly limited to interactions between only a customer and an employee.
Dependent claims 3 – 8 and 11 – 14 inherit this deficiency based on their dependency to claims 1 and 9. Accordingly, the above claims are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications. The priority date of these claims is the priority date of the instant application – 06/06/2024.
Claim 15 recites generating a real-time analytics dataset; display the real-time analytics dataset…as part of an analytics GUI. Claim 15 also recites monitored interaction data meeting a predetermined threshold. There is no support within the referenced applications for an analytics dataset nor thresholds for interaction data. The cited prior applications do not disclose these elements.
Dependent claims 17 – 20 inherit this deficiency based on their dependency to claim 15. Accordingly, all the above claims – as well as all pending claims, that is, claims 1, 3 – 9, 11 – 15, and 17 – 20, are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications. The priority date of all claims is the priority date of the instant application – 06/06/2024.
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, 3 – 9, 11 – 15, and 17 – 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a method and a system; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the amended claims set forth a method for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This method is described within the amended claims by reciting steps for monitoring a customer user’s location in relation to a retail location, sharing data about products at the retail location, and initiating interactions among similarly situated customers or between a customer and an employee. This description aptly describes social activities of shopping at a retail location and the relationships or interactions among other customers and/or employees. This managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people is within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract idea.
This sub-grouping encompass both activity of a single person and activity that involves multiple people and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. The number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the Examiner concludes the claims describe the interactions (location monitoring) of a customer to a retail location as well as the interactions (communications) among customers included in a private group.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claim 9, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method for networking customer devices with each other and with retail location servers comprising:
determining, by a server, that a first device is in proximity of a retail location, the first device being associated with a customer user, wherein determining that the first device is in the proximity further includes:
determining a geolocation of the first device;
generating a geofence around the retail location; and
determining that the first device is within the geofence;
transmitting, by the server, a first set of data indicative of a customer graphical user interface (GUI) to the first device, wherein the customer GUI includes data indicative of products sold in the retail location and sections of the retail location;
transmitting, by the server, instructions to display the customer GUI on a display of the first device, the customer GUI being a part of a webpage or web application window being accessed via the Internet;
subsequently transmitting, by the server via the customer GUI, an invitation to join a private circle associated with the retail location, the private circle including a subset of customers in the retail location who have agreed to subscribe to the private circle;
in response to the customer selecting, on the customer GUI, a confirmation of joining the private circle, transmitting, by the server, a circle GUI providing selectable links to other customer users and event webpages exclusive to the private circle, the links to the other customer users being associated with user accounts that have also been detected within the geofence.
transmitting, by the server, a second set of data indicative of a chat GUI to a second device and instructions to display the chat GUI on a display of a second device associated with a second customer user in response to receiving a user request to interact with the second customer on the customer GUI, the second customer user also being a member of the private circle;
establishing, by the server, a communications channel between the first device and the second device, and
further in response to the establishing the communication channel, transmitting the chat GUI to the second device.
Claim 15, includes certain that further define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method for tracking interactions between customer devices and retail location servers comprising:
determining, by a server, that a first device is in proximity of a retail location, the retail business being associated with an employee and the first device being associated with a customer user, wherein determining that the first device is in the proximity further includes:
determining a geolocation of the first device;
generating a geofence around the retail location; and
determining that the first device is within the geofence;
transmitting, by the server, a first set of data indicative of a customer graphical user interface (GUI) to the first device, wherein the customer GUI includes data indicative of products sold in the retail location and sections of the retail location;
transmitting, by the server, instructions to display the customer GUI on a display of the first device, the customer GUI being a part of a webpage or web application window being accessed via the Internet;
storing, by the server, interaction data generated by the customer user interacting with the customer GUI;
transmitting, by the server, a second set of data indicative of an employee GUI to a second device associated with the employee and instructions to display the employee GUI on a display of the second device, the employee GUI being a part of a webpage or web application window being accessed via the Internet;
in response to the customer selecting, on the customer GUI, a first product or a first section, establishing, by the computing device server, a communication channel between the first device and the second device via the Internet, wherein the employee is associated with the first product or first section;
in response to establishing the communication channel, transmitting, by the server, a chat GUI to the first device and the second device, wherein the chat GUI is operable to transmit communication data over the communication channel;
storing, by the server, the communication data from the chat GUI and metadata regarding the communication data;
generating, by the server, a real-time analytics dataset comprising at least one of the interaction data and the metadata regarding the communication data;
transmitting, by the server, instructions to display the real-time analytics dataset on a display of a third device as part of an analytics GUI, the analytics GUI being a part of a webpage or web application window being accessed via the Internet
monitoring the interaction data; and
in response to the monitored interaction data meeting a predetermined threshold, transmitting, via the customer GUI, a sale webpage to the first device.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1, 9, and 15, recite only the following additional elements:
a server;
a first device;
generating a geofence;
transmitting, by the server, a first set of data indicative of a customer graphical user interface (GUI) to the first device; the customer GUI being a part of a webpage or web application window being accessed via the Internet;
transmitting, by the server, a second set of data indicative of a chat GUI to a second device and instructions to display the chat GUI on a display of a second device associated with a second customer user;
a communications channel between the first device and the second device;
a computer program product, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a computer-readable program code embodied therein to be executed by one or more processors, the program code including instructions;
metadata.
These elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in the disclosure, at Specification [0029 and 0047-0050] and Figures 1 and 6 as filed. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recitation to generate a geofence is further defining the use of a common device in its ordinary capacity to derive GPS data. “The geolocation can be derived from the GPS system on the customer device (e.g., an iPhone)”; and, “For example, the platform can access a database of addresses or coordinates (e.g., Google maps API).” [0041]. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because they do not amount to more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). These include: a server; devices; a communications channel between the devices; and, a computer program product, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a computer-readable program code embodied therein,, the program code including instructions. Instructions to apply the exception do not provide for significantly more. Further, the transmitting of data and metadata, as well as transmitting GPS data (a geofence and geolocation), is use of other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data, per MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not provide for significantly more.
Dependent claims 3 and 11 contain limitations that are further recitations to encryption is simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea on a computer, using the generically described devices noted above; (the devices discussed above), and including “any suitable encryption library for real-time chat communications (e.g., Seald, provided by Seald SAS of Bougival, France).” This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 4, 6 – 8, 12, 14, and 17 – 20, contains limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1, 9, and 15. Recitations to store credits or gift cards and customers; the customers proximity (location); livestream events; and number or interactions and sales, are refinements of the steps for monitoring a customer user’s location in relation to a retail location, sharing data about products at the retail location, and initiating interactions among similarly situated customers or between a customer and an employee. Therefore, they are directed to the abstract idea identified. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Furthermore, these claims amount to no more than simply using the generically described devices noted above to transmit data. Alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 5 and 13 contains limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 9. Recitations to interaction data is directed to the steps for monitoring a customer user’s location in relation to a retail location, sharing data about products at the retail location, and initiating interactions among similarly situated customers or between a customer and an employee. Therefore, they are directed to the abstract idea identified. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Further, they rely on mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on technology to receive, store, or transmit data, per MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1, 3 – 9, 11 – 15, and 17 – 20, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant’s first remarks contend that the amended claims are integrated into a practical application. See page 11. Applicant remarks the amened claims “are directed towards the practical application of improving quality and efficiency of Internet-based communications between customer devices, other customer devices, and employee devices when viewing products from a webpage or web applications on a graphical user interface.” Applicant then remarks on pages 12 – 14 and cites several examples within MPEP and “SME Examples” to show similarly eligible claims. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
First and foremost, the Examiner notes that improving quality and efficiency of customer’s communications is not a technical improvement. Efficiencies here would aim to improve the “customer[’s] engagement with a retail business”, Specification [0024]. See also [0069], and “improve user experience…”. An improvement to a customer interacting with a retail location, in any of the three ways disclosed, [0024], would be directed to an improvement in a customer’s social activity of shopping at a retail location and the relationships or interactions among other customers and/or employees (or the retail store’s webpages). Therefore, the improvement is toward the managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. An improvement to an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, is not an improvement to technology as Applicant argues.
Further regarding Applicant’s arguments towards an improvement in computer functionality to technology, as argued on page 12, the Examiner finds these arguments not persuasive. At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application if the additional elements describe certain elements that show this integration. These considerations are set forth in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). Applicant points to a particular way of programming or designing software to create menus, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
No such additional elements are present within the instant amended claims that would show integration. As detailed above, the amended claims utilize other machinery (devices) in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. Therefore, according to the MPEP, this includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology. The additional elements within the amened claims include: a server; devices; generating a geofence; transmitting, data indicative of a customer graphical user interface (GUI); the GUI being a part of a webpage or web application window being accessed via the Internet; a communications channel; a computer program product, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a computer-readable program code embodied therein to be executed by one or more processors, the program code including instructions). These elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP § 2106.05(f), and do not show any improvement to computer functionality as Applicant argues. The Examiner adds that these claims are more aligned with examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features; mere automation of manual processes; recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment; instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result; or, arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I)(i), (iii), (iv), (vi), and (viii), respectively, which are listed below Applicant’s referenced cites within MPEP.
In short, the Specification has been evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s reference to paragraphs within the Specification do not. Applicant points to [0016 and 0052]. However, this disclosure merely refers to a GUI and a livestreamed event, and websites or applications. No technical problem with displaying a GUI or viewing websites is defined. Rather, Applicant merely claims sharing the GUI among devices; by claiming: transmitting, instructions to display the customer GUI on a display of the first device. This disclosure is mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that device and cannot be concluded to show any improvement to the use of computers or other technology.
Applicant’s arguments as to geofencing and device location suffer the same fate. See page 12. Applicant is again, using geofencing capability (generating a geofence around the retail location), to monitor a customer’s location (determining that the first device is within the geofence). The additional element of the geofence is accomplished by “the GPS system on the customer device (e.g., an iPhone).” This can only be interpreted to be use a common, ubiquitous, machine to transmit data (digital data, such as geolocation data, included with the GPS capabilities of many devices). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components (GPS components) after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues towards a technical solution as detailed within Example 36. See page 13. Applicant argues a meaningful limitation that confines the amended claim to a particular practical application. See page 14. The Examiner notes that Applicant is pointing to language relating to claim 2 of the Example. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. This narration of claim 2 includes disclosure that “[a]s explained in the specification, at the time of this invention, using a high-resolution video camera array with overlapping views to track items of inventory was not well understood, routine, conventional activity to those in the field of inventory control.” Further, as Applicant remarks, “the video camera array with reconstruction software provides the technological solution to the technological problem of automatically tracking objects and determining their physical position using a computer vision system.” No such technical problem is disclosed by Applicant within the instant application. As detailed earlier, Applicant is seeking to improve a customer engagement with a retail business. This is not a technical problem. Further, Applicant is claiming the mere use of devices and the Internet, to locate customers and share webpages among them. Applicant has not described any problem with these devices to operate on the Internet and share data displayed on a gui. Therefore, Applicant is deemed to be merely using ordinary devices to transmit and share data as they ordinarily operate. Applicant is not improving any technology and hos not meaningfully limited the claims to any particular practical application. The use of these devices and the Internet is a meaningful limitation and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s final arguments are directed to rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See pages 14 -16. In view of the amendments to the claims and remarks made by Applicant, the Examiner finds these arguments persuasive.
The Examiner agrees with arguments regarding claims 1 and 9. See page 15. The cited references do not teach nor suggest a method as currently claimed. The most relevant prior art is (Newsum), which discloses a mobile customer engagement platform. (Rathod) teaches methods for identifying specific place of business on a map and view an associated standardized and integrated payment user interface. Newly cited art discloses a method for providing location aware services, (Williams), and mobile proximity-based messages, (Ellis). Other art by Inventor (Swanson) teaches connecting customers to employees. (Note a publication date of 03/10/2022).
However, the Examiner reads the current claims as reciting elements not disclosed by the prior art. Specifically not disclosed, either alone, or in combination, are the following claimed elements, within claims 1 and 9:
subsequently transmitting, an invitation to join a private circle associated with the retail location, the private circle including a subset of customers in the retail location who have agreed to subscribe to the private circle;
in response to the customer selecting, on the customer GUI, a confirmation of joining the private circle, transmitting, by the server, a circle GUI providing selectable links to other customer users and event webpages exclusive to the private circle;
transmitting, by the server, a second set of data indicative of a chat GUI to a second device and instructions to display the chat GUI on a display of a second device associated with a second customer user in response to receiving a user request to interact with the second customer on the customer GUI, the second customer user also being a member of the private circle.
Regarding claims 3 – 8, 11, and 13 – 15, based on their dependency to independent claims 1 and 9, and containing further limiting elements, inherit the distinguished claim limitations and are therefore, also not disclosed by the prior art.
The Examiner agrees with arguments regarding claim 15. See page 15. The cited references do not teach nor suggest a method as currently claimed. The most relevant prior art is (Newsum), which discloses a mobile customer engagement platform. (Rathod) teaches methods for identifying specific place of business on a map and view an associated standardized and integrated payment user interface. Newly cited art discloses event-based offers for a geofenced area, and suggests an analytics data store, (Bell).
However, the Examiner reads the current claim as reciting elements not disclosed by the prior art. Specifically not disclosed, either alone, or in combination, are the following claimed elements, within claim 15:
generating, by the server, a real-time analytics dataset comprising at least one of the interaction data and the metadata regarding the communication data; and, transmitting, by the server, instructions to display the real-time analytics dataset on a dis- play of a third device as part of an analytics GUI.
Regarding claims 17 – 20, based on their dependency to independent claim 15, and containing further limiting elements, inherit the distinguished claim limitations and are therefore, also not disclosed by the prior art.
Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections within this Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bell discloses event-based offers for a geofenced area, and suggests an analytics data store. Rushing details a user interface based on proximity data of users of a communication platform. Silverstein discusses a method for providing notifications to a user based upon location. Swanson discloses connecting customers to employees. Williams discloses a method for providing location aware services.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571)272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights