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 .
Claim Status
The claims filed 10/17/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are independent.
Claims 1, 5, 13, and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 2-4, 6-12, and 14-19 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Claim Objections
Applicant argues that claim 5 has been amended to correct minor informalities. However, the claim remains objected to because it now recites “… associated with plurality of data beacons…”, which is understood as “… associated with a plurality of data beacons”.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with regarding the prior rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment presented herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “… associated with plurality of data beacons…”, which is understood as “… associated with a plurality of data beacons”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramalingam (US 2011/0238514 A1) in view of Faith (US 2010/0280927 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Ramanlingam discloses a computer-implemented method and corresponding system/product, comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a permission from a user of a plurality of users to monitor a location of a device (see para. 0028, wherein it is implicit that the user has granted location permission on the mobile device in order to use the disclosed geolocation features);
utilizing, by the processor and in response to receiving the permission from the user, a plurality of geo-fencing sensors to triangulate the location of the device (see para. 0060, 0073-0075);
automatically authenticate an execution of an action associated with the device based on a data beacon generating a primed signal when the location of the device is within a permissible area (see para. 0028, which discloses geolocation via merchant-broadcast locator signals. Here, the locator broadcast signal is not necessarily the primed signal. The primed signal may be a subsequent transaction-enabling signal caused by the beacon broadcast, i.e. the data beacon “generating” a primed signal is reasonably interpreted as causing a primed signal to complete a primed transaction);
wherein the primed signal is a signal that is generated in response to at least one permissible action (see para. 0080-0083);
transmitting, by the processor, a plurality of data from the device to an external data source associated with the action within a predetermined period of time based on the location of the device and the primed signal (see para. 0061-0062);
dynamically updating, by the processor, a storage module associated with the device with metadata based on a transmission of the plurality of data associated with the action (see para. 0060, 0084-0088);
Ramalingam does not explicitly disclose, but Faith teaches utilizing, by the processor, a machine learning algorithm to authenticate the action (see para. 0021-0022, 0042-0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system/product of Ramalingam to include the feature taught by Faith.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to provide the customer with a smooth transaction experience (see para. 0022).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Ramalingam discloses wherein the action comprises a transfer of data from an account associated with the user to a server computing device associated with the external data source (see para. 0061-0063).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Ramalingam discloses wherein the device comprises a smart credit card capable of performing data transfers between two data sources (see para. 0046, 0066, wherein the mobile device with geolocation serves as the smart credit card).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Ramalingam discloses wherein the permission from the user allows activity associated with the device to occur in an absence of the user within a permissible area (0080-0083).
Regarding claim 5, Ramalingam discloses wherein the permissible area comprises a triangulated location associated with a plurality of data beacons communicating with the device (see para. 0060).
Regarding claim 7, Ramalingam discloses utilizing the plurality of geo-fencing sensors to continually locate the location of the device in real-time for an extended period of time in response to the device remaining within a triangulated area (see para. 0060).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Ramalingam discloses wherein the primed signal comprises a digital signal associated with a first data beacon of a plurality of data beacons within a triangulated area, and the primed signal occurs in response to an execution of a permissible action (see para. 0080-0083) .
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Ramalingam discloses wherein an authentication of the action comprises: verifying an identity of the user of the plurality of users associated with the device; and verifying the permission of a verified user to allow the action to occur in an absence of a presence of the verified user (see 0080-0083).
Regarding claim 10 and with further regards to claim 13, Faith teaches predicting a plurality of trends associated with a plurality of dynamic updates to the storage module of the device over the predetermined period of time (see para. 0021-0022, 0042-0043).
Regarding claim 11, Faith teaches the plurality of trends comprise a plurality of identifiable features associated with the action (see para. 0021-0022, 0042-0043).
Regarding claim 12, Ramalingam discloses associated with device in response to an attempt of an action outside of a permissible geo-location area or outside of a permissible period of time (see para. 0080-0083).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramalingam (US 2011/0238514 A1) in view of Faith (US 2010/0280927 A1), further in view of Kashani-Nejad (US 2021/0306807 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Ramalingam does not explicitly disclose, but Kashani-Nejad teaches a location with an accuracy within a range of certainty ranging from a minimum of less than one foot and a maximum of ten feet from the data beacon of a plurality of data beacons (see para. 0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/product/system of Ramalingam further to include the feature taught by Kashani-Nejad.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to provide a hyper local location which is more accurate (see Kashani-Nejad, para. 0068).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Theobald (US 2015/0379650 A1) discloses systems and methods for communication of orders and payments in a drive through using wireless beacons. A merchant location may include a drive through with a wireless beacon established in the drive through. The beacon may provide communication services with a device for the user. The merchant may detect that the user is in a vehicle in the drive through using either the connection between the device of the user and the beacon or a camera, sensor, or other detector located near the beacon in the drive through. Based on check-in information generated on the connection, an order for the user may be accessed. The user may pay for the order using the device and through the connection to the beacon. Further, if other devices for additional users in the vehicle connect to the beacon, the additional users may split the payment for the order.
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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693