DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9+ of the Remarks, filed on 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 8, 10, 13-14 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0359994).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurewitz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0227359) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0359994).
Regarding claim 1, Hurewitz et al. discloses a system comprising:
at least one processor (see paragraphs 0076-0077 and fig. 9; central processing unit (CPU)); and
at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium storing instructions or data thereon, the instructions or data, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (see paragraphs 0076-0078 and fig. 9; The storage device 916 includes a machine-readable medium 922 on which is stored one or more sets of data structures and instructions 924 (e.g., software) embodying or utilized by any one or more of the methodologies or functions):
detect that a user device for a user is within a geographic area associated with an organization (see paragraphs 0016-0019, fig. 2 (elements 210-216, 230, 250); detecting a mobile device with a retail store via Bluetooth beacons, NFC, Wi-Fi triangulation. The “retail store” is the geographic area associated with the organization);
identify a set of access points associated with a network used by the organization (see paragraphs 0027, 0036; plurality of Wi-Fi access points 122A, 122B, 122C used for triangulation and location determination in the retail store);
detect whether the user device has connected to at least one access point of the set of access points (see paragraphs 0036-0037; detecting MAC address and DHCP connection establishment when a device connects to Wi-Fi access points);
determine whether the user of the user device was present at one or more locations within the geographic area based on the connection of the user device to the at least one access point (see paragraph 0027, 0036-0037; determining location of mobile device in tracked environment using triangulation of Wi-Fi access points and beacon positioning);
identify content based on the determination of whether the user was present at the one or more locations (see paragraphs 0016-0021, fig. 5(steps 508-510); requesting and receiving content from media network based on location/activity in retail store).
However, Hurewitz et al. is silent as to identify a content presentation device associated with the organization; and cause at least one content presentation device, the at least one content presentation device including the content presentation device associated with the organization that is not the user device to present the identified content to the user.
In an analogous art, Liu et al. discloses identify a content presentation device associated with the organization (see paragraphs 0002-0005, 0046-0049, fig. 1, fig. 3; a public board (142, 322) as a content presentation device associated with the organization, distinct from the user device); and
cause at least one content presentation device, the at least one content presentation device including the content presentation device associated with the organization that is not the user device to present the identified content to the user (see paragraphs 0046-0049, fig. 1, fig. 3; delivering customized content to a public board (not the user device) for presentation to the audience).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hurewitz et al. with the teachings of Liu et al. et al., the motivation being to reach users not only on their personal devices but also through organizational/public displays thereby increasing engagement and monetization.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Hurewitz et al. and Liu et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hurewitz et al. discloses wherein, to cause the at least one content presentation device to present the identified content to the user, the instructions or data further cause the at least one processor to:
cause the user device to present the identified content to the user (see paragraph 0062, fig. 5 (512)).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 18, Hurewitz et al. and Liu et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1, 13 and 17). Hurewitz et al. discloses wherein, to determine whether the user of the user device was present at one or more locations within the geographic area, the instructions or data further cause the at least one processor to:
for each respective location of the one or more locations (see fig. 1; product sales area, product 1 demonstration area etc.):
identify one or more access points associated with the respective location based on the set of access points (see paragraph 0027; plurality of Wi-Fi access points 122A, 122B, 122C);
determine whether the user device was connected to at least one access point of the one or more access points (see paragraphs 0027, 0030-0036); and
determine that the user was present at the respective location based on the determination that the user device was connected to the at least one access point (see paragraph 0027).
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 19, Hurewitz et al. and Liu et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1, 13 and 17). Liu et al. discloses wherein the instructions or data further cause the at least one processor to:
access historical data indicating one or more user preferences of the user (see paragraphs 0035-0037; collecting locale preferences, user profiles, interests, bookmarks, favorite websites, dislikes, etc., from mobile device);
identify one or more devices associated with one or more amenities offered by the organization based on the historical data (see paragraphs 0046-0049 and fig. 3; identifying a public board (considered as content presentation device) in a defined area and configuring it based on audience preferences); and
cause the one or more devices to be configured based on the historical data indicating the one or more user preferences of the user (see paragraphs 0046-0049 and fig. 5; configuring a public board to present customized content based on weighted locale preferences and interests of the audience).
Regarding claim 6, Hurewitz et al. and Liu et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 5). Liu et al. discloses wherein, to cause the one or more devices to be configured, the instructions or data further cause the at least one processor to:
identify whether at least one device associated with one or more amenities is connected to the network (see paragraphs 0046-0049, fig. 1, fig. 3; identifying public boards (content presentation devices) connected to the network to deliver customized content. These boards are devices associated with amenities in public environments); and
identify one or more user preferences that can be used to configure the at least one device based on the at least one device and the historical data indicating user preferences (see paragraphs 0035-0037, 0047-0049; analyzing locale preferences, interests, and profiles to configure public boards with customized content. This is directly configuring organizational devices based on user preferences); and
transmit a signal to the at least one device instructing the at least one device to be configured based on the historical data indicating user preferences (see paragraphs 0046-0049, fig. 5; transmitting customized content to public boards (organizational devices) based on user preferences).
Regarding claim 7, Hurewitz et al. and Liu et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 5). Hurewitz et al. discloses wherein the instructions or data further cause the at least one processor to:
identify one or more smart devices associated with the user (see paragraph 0027, fig. 2, fig. 3; identifying mobile computing devices (smartphones, tablets, wearables) associated with the user in a retail environment. These are smart phones associated with the user);
identify one or more configurations of the one or more smart devices (see paragraphs 0031-0037; detecting device identifiers (MAC addresses, Bluetooth pairing, NFC tags) and network configurations (Wi-Fi connection setup, DHCP). These are configurations of smart devices); and
generate historical data indicating user preferences based on the one or more configurations (see paragraphs 0016-0021, 0029; storing customer activity data (browsing, product demonstrations, purchases) in a data warehouse, correlated with device identifiers and configurations. This generates historical data indicating user preferences).
Regarding claim 8, Hurewitz et al. and Liu et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hurewitz et al. discloses wherein, to detect that the user device associated with the user is within a geographic area associated with an organization, the instructions or data further cause the at least one processor to:
determine whether the user device has connected to one or more access points of the set of access points (see paragraphs 0027, 0030-0036).
Regarding claim 10, Hurewitz et al. and Liu et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hurewitz et al. discloses wherein, to detect that the user device associated with the user is within a geographic area associated with an organization, the instructions or data further cause the at least one processor to:
determine whether the user device has transmitted data to a device equipped with a near-field-communication (NFC) chip (see paragraphs 0039-0040).
Regarding claims 11, 16 and 20, Hurewitz et al. and Liu et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1 and 13). Liu et al. discloses wherein the instructions or data further cause the at least one processor to:
access data indicating one or more instances of content viewed by the user at a time before the user device was detected to be within the geographical area (see paragraphs 0035-0037; collecting user profile information, interests, bookmarks, favorite websites, and social media activity. This could include content viewed prior to entering the geographic area);
determine whether the user was previously viewing at least one instance content before the user device was detected to be within the geographical area based on the data indicating one or more instances of content viewed by the user (see paragraphs 0035-0037, 0047-0049; analyzing locale information, user profiles, and interests to determine common preferences and content previously accessed. This supports determining whether the user was previously viewing content before being detected in the geographic area); and
cause the at least one instance of content to be displayed by the at least one content presentation device based on a determination that the user was previously viewing the at least one instance of content before the user device was detected to be within the geographical area (see paragraphs 0046-0049, fig. 1, fig. 3; delivering customized content to a public board based on user preferences and prior activity. This includes configuring content presentation devices to display content relevant to what the user was previously viewing).
Regarding claim 12, Hurewitz et al. and Liu et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 11). Hurewitz et al. discloses wherein, to cause the at least one instance of content to be displayed by a content presentation device, the instructions or data further cause the at least one processor to:
determine whether the user device has connected to an access point associated with one or more amenities provided by the organization (see paragraphs 0027, 0036-0037 and fig. 2; detecting whether a mobile device connects to Wi-Fi access points (122A-122C) in the retail environment. Theses access points are associated with store amenities (departments, demonstration areas, checkout)); and
Liu et al. discloses cause a content presentation device associated with the one or more amenities to receive instructions to display the content based on a determination that the user device has connected to the access point associated with the one or more amenities (see paragraphs 0046-0049, fig. 1, fig. 3; delivering customized content to a public board (content presentation device) associated with the organization, based on user preferences and detected presence. This is exactly a content presentation device associated with amenities).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurewitz et al. and Liu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kerr et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0129689).
Regarding claim 9, Hurewitz et al. and Liu et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hurewitz et al. discloses scanning in paragraphs 0036.
However, Hurewitz et al. and Liu et. is silent as to wherein, to detect that the user device associated with the user is within a geographic area associated with an organization, the instructions or data further cause the at least one processor to: determine whether the user device has scanned one or more physical codes associated with the organization.
Kerr et al. discloses wherein, to detect that the user device associated with the user is within a geographic area associated with an organization, the instructions or data further cause the at least one processor to: determine whether the user device has scanned one or more physical codes associated with the organization (see paragraph 0131).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hurewitz et al. and Liu et al. with the teachings of Kerr et al., the motivation being to provide enhanced convenience for users and effective marketing for businesses.
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 NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 January 28, 2026.
Prosecution Insights