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 .
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 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 remain pending, and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/3/2026 with respect to the rejection under Double Patenting have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Applicant has filed a Terminal Disclaimer.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/3/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 10-11 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that that Benkreira does not disclose detecting beacon or tag signal strength threshold in response to the query, and only use location data such as GPS, IP address, or user provided location to determine the proximity of merchants of the product in the user input. It is argued that the detection of signal strength is independent of any query, and the two inventions are impermissibly combined. On pages 11-12, it is argued that Mourya does not rank retailer locations as candidates for purchasing an item, but is directed to presenting and ranking advertisement content based on proximity, independent of any kind of query. Similarly, on pages 12-13, it is argued that Mourya does not disclose modifying a ranking of retailers in response to a query, but are directed to advertisements.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The two inventions are directed to identifying merchants in proximity to a user that has offers for the user. While Mourya does not disclose an input, it discloses the detecting of signal strengths for offers of products (advertisements) from retailers in proximity to the user, and Benkreira discloses the user inputting a product and determining retailers in proximity to the user. It would have been obvious to combine the inventions together such that the use of signal strength to determine nearby retailers would be in response to a search, query, or request for a product, such that the user can identify offers for a product near them. Mourya discloses the need for providing relevant information to a user without requiring building of networks or expensive devices (Mourya: [0006]), and Benkreira discloses the users desiring to purchase a particular product immediately from a local merchant (Benkreira: col. 1, ln. 37-43). As such, the inventions are related in providing nearby offers of local merchants to a user, and utilizing the signal strength threshold and reranking of retailers with the request for a particular product in identifying a retailer nearby that offers that product would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been maintained below.
Examiner’s Note
The claims are clear of any rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the process of the abstract idea with particular technology as the signal strengths with retailer beacons are detected and monitored, such that the ranking of retailer locations is based on the changing signal strengths, rather than merely being directed to the abstract idea of ranking retailers as candidates to purchase a queried item. The various beacons and detected signal strengths are integrated with the abstract idea more than just gathering location data, provide more meaningful limitation than providing a general link to a particular technological environment, and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Mourya (US 20130030918 A1) in view of Benkreira (US 10,839,453 B1).
Regarding Claim 1: Mourya discloses a method comprising:
detecting, via a beacon or a tag, that a device within a retailer location, of a plurality of retailer locations, is within a signal strength threshold to the user device; (Mourya: [0032] – “scans to detect one or more Vid transmitters that are within a detection range of the user device for corresponding SSID and MAC addresses. As discussed above, all Vid transmitters may utilize the same SSID, yet have unique MAC addresses. Using network connection features of the user device and the MAC addresses of the Vid transmitters, the application may connect to an Internet based VPP and retrieve solicitation information for each of the participating advertisers that have detected MAC addresses, including coupon details and special deals that may be rendered within a user interface provided on the user device”; Mourya: [0042] – “as a consumer walks from a first store (e.g., Guess) to a second store (e.g., Mac Cosmetics), an application executing on the user device may sense that a signal strength of the transmitter associated with Guess (e.g., located at the Guess store) is weakening and that a signal strength of the transmitter associated with the Mac Cosmetics (e.g., located at the Mac Cosmetics store) is increasing. In this way, in accordance with an embodiment of the present system, advertisements from Guess with the weaker signal may be deemphasized in relation to advertisements associated with the Mac Cosmetics”). The detection range represents a threshold.
based on the device within the retailer location being within the signal strength threshold to the user device, ranking, in a particular position or value, the retailer location among the plurality of retailer locations; (Mourya: [0037] – “an indication of Ritz Camera, Guess, GameStop and Sweet Factory are rendered on a user interface 210 (or portion of the user interface) of a device 200 in an order that is indicative of a relative distance of each of the participating advertisers to the user device 200. In accordance with this embodiment of the present system, Ritz Camera is closest to the user device 200, Guess is next closest, and GameStop is next closest, while the Sweet Factory is furthest away from the user device”).
detecting, via the beacon or the tag, that the device within the retailer location is outside of the signal strength threshold to the user device; (Mourya: [0042] – “advertisements from the participating advertisers that are determined to be further from the user device than an other participating advertiser, may be deemphasized in relation to advertisements associated with the other participating advertiser. For example, as a consumer walks from a first store (e.g., Guess) to a second store (e.g., Mac Cosmetics), an application executing on the user device may sense that a signal strength of the transmitter associated with Guess (e.g., located at the Guess store) is weakening”).
based on the detecting that the device within the retailer location is outside of the signal strength threshold to the user device, modifying the ranking of the retailer location such that the retailer location is ranked in a lower position or value relative to the particular position or value as the candidate for purchasing the item from; (Mourya: [0042] – “advertisements from Guess with the weaker signal may be deemphasized in relation to advertisements associated with the Mac Cosmetics. For example, an ordering of advertisements may be adjusted such that advertisements from Mac Cosmetics are moved on a list of advertisements rendered on the user device, from below the advertisements associated with Guess to above the advertisements associated with Guess”).
based on the modifying of the ranking of the retailer location, causing presentation, at the user device, of a user interface element. (Mourya: [0042] – “an ordering of advertisements may be adjusted such that advertisements from Mac Cosmetics are moved on a list of advertisements rendered on the user device”).
Mourya does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
receiving, via user device, a query that describes an item;
in response to the receiving of the query that describes the item;
Notably, Mourya does disclose the devices searching additional information about the retailer advertisement (Mourya: [0026]), and sensing signal strength thresholds and emphasizing/deemphasizing the retailers on the list based on the signal strength (Mourya: [0042]).
To that accord, Benkreira does teach a method comprising:
receiving, via user device, a query that describes an item; (Benkreira: col. 8, ln. 11-17 – “Browser extension 203 may also include another interface (not shown) that includes a search field (e.g., a search bar) to enable a user to input text to browser extension 203. For example, the user may input text describing the at least one product 205 into a search field of the browser extension 203 and the processors 112 may receive the input text to detect the at least one product 205 on the web page”).
in response to the receiving of the query that describes the item; (Benkreira: col. 11, ln. 27-40 – “the one or more processors 112 may determine the identified one or more merchants having the detected at least one product 205 in stock and having a location within a predetermined distance of the user location. For example, the predetermined distance may be input to the browser extension 203 by the user via user computing device 140. The predetermined distance may include a radius from the user location, such as, for example, 1 mile, 2 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles, 25 miles, etc. As such, the processors 112 may determine the one or more merchants having the detected at least one product 205 in stock and having a location (e.g., based on the address information of the one or more merchants) within the predetermined distance of the user location”).
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 invention of Mourya disclosing the system for detecting and ranking nearby retailers to the user by signal strength with the receiving of a query from a user device as taught by Benkreira. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow shoppers to purchase a specific product immediately from a local merchant (Benkreira: col. 1, ln. 35-44).
Regarding Claim 2: Mourya in view of Benkreira discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mourya further discloses wherein the ranking of the retailer location causes the retailer location to be ranked higher relative to a second retailer location, and wherein modifying of the ranking of the retailer location causes the retailer location to be ranked lower relative to the second retailer location. Mourya discloses emphasizing and deemphasizing the retailers on the list based on their signal strength, such that the retailer with the stronger signal is above the weaker signal retailer on the list (Mourya: [0042]; see also: [0018]; [0034]; [0068]).
Regarding Claim 3: Mourya in view of Benkreira discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mourya further discloses wherein the user interface element includes a list of indicators that each represent a respective ranked retailer location of the plurality of retailer locations. (Mourya: [0037] – “an indication of Ritz Camera, Guess, GameStop and Sweet Factory are rendered on a user interface 210 (or portion of the user interface) of a device 200 in an order that is indicative of a relative distance of each of the participating advertisers to the user device 200. In accordance with this embodiment of the present system, Ritz Camera is closest to the user device 200, Guess is next closest, and GameStop is next closest, while the Sweet Factory is furthest away from the user device”; Mourya: [0043] – “a transparency of rendered indications of participating advertisers may be adjusted such that advertisements from a closer advertiser are rendered less transparent than advertisements from an advertiser that is further from the user device”).
Regarding Claim 5: Mourya in view of Benkreira discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mourya further discloses wherein the device includes the beacon or tag and wherein the device is a part of an indoor positioning system attached to the retailer location. (Mourya: [0024] – “the Vid transmitter may be installed at a location of a participating advertiser, such as in a store of a participating advertiser”).
Regarding Claim 8: Mourya in view of Benkreira discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mourya further disloses:
detecting, in near real-time, geo-coordinates of the user device; (Mourya: [0032] – “scans to detect one or more Vid transmitters that are within a detection range of the user device for corresponding SSID and MAC addresses. As discussed above, all Vid transmitters may utilize the same SSID, yet have unique MAC addresses”).
based on the detecting of the geo-coordinates and the detecting, via the beacon or a tag, that the device within a retailer location is within the signal strength threshold to the user device, determine that the retailer location is within a threshold distance of the geo-coordinates. (Mourya: [0032] – “scans to detect one or more Vid transmitters that are within a detection range of the user device for corresponding SSID and MAC addresses. As discussed above, all Vid transmitters may utilize the same SSID, yet have unique MAC addresses. Using network connection features of the user device and the MAC addresses of the Vid transmitters, the application may connect to an Internet based VPP and retrieve solicitation information for each of the participating advertisers that have detected MAC addresses”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17: Claims 9 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claims 9 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10: Claim 10 is recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding Claims 11 and 18: Claims 11 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claims 11 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding Claims 13 and 20: Claims 13 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claims 13 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16 is recites substantially similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Claims 4, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Mourya (US 20130030918 A1) and Benkreira (US 10,839,453 B1), in view of Adel (US 20160284014 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: The combination of Mourya and Benkreira discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the query is for an item and wherein the item includes the tag or beacon. Notably, however, Mourya does disclose Vid transmitters that are installed in the location of the participating advertisers (retailers) (Mourya: [0024]), and Benkreira does teach the user inputting text for a search for a product, including determining retailers within a predetermined distance that have the product in stock (Benkreira: col. 8, ln. 11-17; col. 11, ln. 27-31).
To that accord, Adel does teach wherein the query is for an item and wherein the item includes the tag or beacon. (Adel: [0067] – “user device 210 may locate and/or guide a user to a product based on a search history, a search on a different device, or the like. For example, assume that user device 210 causes a search to be performed for a particular product, and assume that user device 210 determines no compatible products associated with a first location. Assume further that user device 210 stores search history information that describes the particular product, and that user device 210 moves to a second location that associated with a compatible product. User device 210 may receive a tag signal at the second location from a tag device 220 associated with the compatible product”).
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 invention of the combination of Mourya and Benkreira disclosing the system for detecting and ranking nearby retailers to the user by signal strength with the item including the tag or beacon as taught by Adel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to assist a user locate a product without assistance from a worker (Adel: [0009]).
Regarding Claims 12 and 19: Claims 12 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claims 12 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Mourya (US 20130030918 A1) and Benkreira (US 10,839,453 B1), in view of Kim (US 11,010,707 B1).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Mourya and Benkreira discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach further comprising:
determining that a set of delivery services, of a plurality of delivery services, are available to deliver the item from at least one of the plurality of retailer locations to a location of a user of the user device;
based on the determining, causing presentation of indicators representing the set of delivery services at the user device.
Notably, however, Mourya does disclose a GPS location of the user device (Mourya: [0045]).
To that accord, Kim does teach further comprising:
determining that a set of delivery services, of a plurality of delivery services, are available to deliver the item from at least one of the plurality of retailer locations to a location of a user of the user device; (Kim: col. 14, ln. 7-18 – “interconnection service device 116 forwards a second confirmation request associated with a plurality of tasks to a plurality of third computer systems. In this example, the plurality of third computer systems may be item delivery provider devices 106(1)-106(n). The interconnection service device 116 forwards or transmits the second confirmation request to the item delivery provider devices 106(1)-106(n), requesting the item delivery provider devices 106(1)-106(n) to either accept or deny pickup of the requested item from the merchant stores 112(1)-112(n) and delivery the requested item to customer devices 102(1)-102(n) at customer locations”).
based on the determining, causing presentation of indicators representing the set of delivery services at the user device. (Kim: col. 19, ln. 65-col. 20, ln. 3 – “Updated delivery time message causes to update delivery task interface previously generated and displayed at customer devices 102(1)-102(n), item delivery provider devices 106(1)-106(n), and item service provider devices”).
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 invention of the combination of Mourya and Benkreira disclosing the system for detecting and ranking nearby retailers to the user by signal strength with the determining of delivery services of the item from the retailers and presenting them to the user as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce time delays incurred by merchants and delivery personnel (Kim: col. 1, ln. 40-53).
Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15 is recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The following is a restatement of the reasons for indicating subject matter free of prior art that was previously mailed on 12/3/2025.
Claims 6 and 14 are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 6 recites the claimed features of:
further comprising executing the query by ranking a plurality of item listings and causing presentation, at the user device, of a second user interface element representing the ranked plurality of item listings, wherein a user interface includes the first user interface element representing the plurality of retailer locations that have been ranked and the second user interface element representing the ranked plurality of item listings.
The closest prior art was found to be as follows:
Sorensen (US 20200043086 A1) discloses [0035] – “The GUI of FIG. 3A is configured to display in a first region 70 including a ranked list of products is generated based related to the position of the terminal relative to other product categories within the store, and to display in a second region 72 a ranked list of products that is generated without regard to the location of the terminal relative to other product categories in the store. In the first region 70 of FIG. 3A, the GUI displays products that are available only online, and provides a graphical indication 74 of the online availability in the form of a label ONLINE on each product icon 76. The second region 72 displays products that are top sellers in the store, and also provides an indication 74 in the form of a label ONLINE, IN STOCK, or ON SHELVES, to indicate to the user the manner in which the product is available for purchase”.
Chung (US 20130262198 A1) discloses [0016] – “The application ranks a signal strength of the client device to the plurality of network identifiers and determines at which merchant the client device is located based on the ranking of the signal strength of the plurality of network identifiers. Responsive to the determination, the application transmits to the server identification of the merchant”.
Patel (US 20200082402 A1) discloses [0217] – “The available merchant list is presented in the consumer app and may be sorted according to distance to the merchant, which is, in some implementations, based on the signal strength of the short-range radio”.
NPL Reference U (see PTO-892 Reference U mailed on 12/3/2025) discloses providing location information for a user within a retailer location based on RSSs from Wi-Fi access points.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claims 6 in combination that overcome the prior art are:
further comprising executing the query by ranking a plurality of item listings and causing presentation, at the user device, of a second user interface element representing the ranked plurality of item listings, wherein a user interface includes the first user interface element representing the plurality of retailer locations that have been ranked and the second user interface element representing the ranked plurality of item listings.
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that claims 6 and 14 are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 7:00pm 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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 5/21/2026
Prosecution Insights