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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 10-18 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 2, 6-7, 9, and 19-20 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/18/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/18/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims as amended are directed to a specific technological solution for “capturing, analyzing, and distributing user insights based on physical signals” in a “privacy conscious, cookie-less manner”. Specification paragraphs [0001-0002] are cited in disclosing a need for cook-less data gathering and communication techniques that enable affiliated parties to collect and use information associated with a user by using “irreversibly hashed groups made up of a plurality of individually hashed user identifier”, which allow a first-party to “securely transmit hashed information associated with its first party user over one or more networks (e.g., secure, or unsecure) without exposing user information to malicious parties”. The Applicant alleges that the claims enable a specific multi-step technological process for secure data communication between “specifically placed beacons throughout a physical location”. On page 9 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that provides “a number of improvements to computing technology such as, for example, storage, encryption, and communication technologies”, including bridging the gap between the digital and physical world, such as by directly transmitting to a merchant/marketer cloud computing platform, saving computational resources. The Applicant further argues that the claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception by reciting an ordered combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field of data privacy.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “capturing, analyzing, and distributing user insights based on physical signals” represents commercials sales activities, as it is merely gathering data of user interactions to determine their interest level. The claims do not recite any particular manner in which data is stored or retrieved from memory, or transmitted or received such that any changes to how the computer functions. The computer also does not use any particular methods in encrypting the data and securely transmit information. The claims merely recite a very general applying of a cryptographic hash function without any further detail regarding information security. The hashing is not performed in any novel or particular manner; specification paragraph [0060] discloses that the cryptographic hashing function can be any type of hashing algorithm, such as a message digest algorithm (MD5), secure hash algorithm (SHA-0, SHA-1, SHA-2, etc.), etc. As such it is evident that the claims are not directed to any technical method of encrypting data and securely transmitting data over a network, but are directed to the abstract idea of gathering interaction information to determine user interest in an item, and the hashing is merely applied to the abstract idea with a very high level of generality, such that it is securely performed over a network environment. Furthermore, the claims, nor the specification, recite any particular beacon system. The beacon devices are not disclosed in the specification with any particularity, specification paragraph [0137] disclosing the physical devices as being any type of sensor. The claims also do not recite any specific manner in which the beacon system is formed, merely having physical devices corresponding to items, and transmitting information in a generic manner. As such, the claims do not improve how a computer stores data, encrypts data, or communicates data, the claims merely apply generic methods to the abstract idea. Storing data in a remote server as opposed to the local storage does not constitute an improvement in a computer ability to use less resources. This merely changes where the data is stored, and does not affect any performance of the computing device. As such, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of gathering user interaction data to determine user interest, and implementing and automating the abstract idea within a computing environment.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/18/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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, 3-5, 8, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3-5, 8, and 10-11 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 12-17 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Claims 18 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable media, which is an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 10-18 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of gathering interaction information to determine items the user is interested in and initiating an action based on the interest level:
receiving a user communication from a user, wherein the user communication comprises a sensor identifier, a timestamp, and a hashed user identifier generated by applying a cryptographic hash function to a user information attribute;
receiving a communication comprising a timestamp and interaction data indicative of a physical interaction type between the user and at least one item;
identifying the user by generating a first-party hashed list from a plurality of known user identifiers using a matching cryptographic hash function and determining a match between the hashed user identifier and at least one entry in the first-party hashed list;
determining a user-item association based, at least in part, on a temporal match between the timestamps;
determining an item interest level for the at least one item based, at least in part, on the user-item association;
initiating generation and presentation of a content item to the user, wherein the content item is based, at least in part, on the item interest level.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for gathering interaction information to determine items the user is interested in and initiating an action based on the interest level. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to receiving a user-item association, an interest level, and initiating an action based on the interest level (see specification [0033] disclosing the gathering of insights of a customer to display products), which is a sales and marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Returning to representative claim 1, Examiner acknowledges that claim 1 recites additional elements, such as:
a first party computing system comprising one or more computing devices;
a device timestamp;
a sensor;
a physical device associated with the sensor identifier;
a beacon;
a user device;
wherein the sensor identifier corresponds to a physical device associated with at least one item;
Taken individually and as a whole, claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than apply the judicial exception on a general purpose computer.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite a first party computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a user device, and a physical device associated with at least one item, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality. The first party computing system is merely recited in passing in the claims as performing the steps of the claims without any further details. The specification discloses the first party computing system as including one or more processors and a memory to store instructions to perform the operations of the claims (specification: [0150]), and including one or more beacons or physical sensors (specification: [0136]). The physical devices associated with the item, or the beacons and/or sensors, are disclosed as being any number and/or type of sensor, such as image sensors, audio sensors, radio sensors, tactile sensors, etc. (specification: [0137]). It is evident that the first party computing system and the physical devices are any generic computer or sensor to provide a general link to a computing environment and provide information for the abstract idea. The user device and computing devices are also disclosed with a high level of generality, being any of a mobile phone, personal laptop, smart watch, and/or any other device associated with a customer (specification: [0147]). The user device merely represents the user in a computing environment. The additional elements of the claims are merely generic devices that are applied to the abstract idea to perform the abstract idea in a computing environment, such as to provide a general link to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 12 (system): Claim 12 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 12 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18 non-transitory computer-readable media): Claim 18 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 18 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Dependent claims 3-5, 8, 10-11, and 13-17 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the algorithm of determining items the user is interested in and initiating an action based on the interest level. Thus, each of claims 3-5, 8, 10-11, and 13-17 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 3-5, 8, 10-11, and 13-17 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 3-5, 8, 10-11, and 13-17 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements (e.g., a first party software application (claim 14); a user interface (claim 16)) are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 3-5, 8, 10-11, and 13-17 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 3-5, 8, 10-11, and 13-17 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 3-5, 8, 10-11, and 13-17 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 3-5, 8, 10-11, and 13-17 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
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, 10-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Stern (US 20210201362 A1) in view of Rao (US 20140379480 A1), and in further view of Mimassi (US 20220148025 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Stern discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a first party computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a user communication from a user device associated with a user, wherein the user communication comprises a sensor identifier and a user identifier, wherein the sensor identifier corresponds to a physical device associated with at least one item; (Stern: [0055] – “the merchant system 120 may be enabled to detect that a user 131 has interacted with an item positioned in the environment. In some embodiments, user interaction may be determined by a communication between a customer card 135 carried by user 131 and one of a plurality of product tags 128 affixed to store items (or other points of interest) within the retail environment associated with merchant system 120. In some embodiments, customer card 135 is configured to communicate with a product tag 128 and then communicate the interaction with merchant hub 124. In other embodiments, merchant hub 124 may be able to sense an interaction or coupling of customer card 135 with a product tag 128, via changes in an electric field for example. In other embodiments, a product tag 128 may be enabled to communicate to hub 124 an interaction with a user's customer card”; Stern: [0040] – “Upon a determination that user 131 has interacted with one or more store items 123, hub(s) 124 may transmit information associated with customer card 135 (such as user 131 identification information) and store item 123 (based on information provided by merchant system 120 in product tag 128) to merchant server”).
receiving, by the first party computing system, a sensor communication from a physical device associated with the sensor identifier, the sensor communication comprising interaction data indicative of a physical interaction type between the user and the at least one item; (Stern: [0056] – “hub(s) 124 and/or merchant system 120 may be able to determine that a user 131 (with customer card 135) stood in front of a particular set of products or interacted with a store item 123, such as by picking up the item”).
determining, by the first party computing system, a user-item association; (Stern: [0056] – “Merchant system 120 may be enabled to determine and store numerous other data associated with the user interaction. For example, merchant system 120 may be able to determine the location of a store item 123 where the user interacts with the item 123. Additionally, merchant system 120 may be able to determine an amount of time the user 131 interacted with a store item 123 and whether the user 131 carried the item 123 away from its initial location, such as to purchase or compare the item with other items. Merchant system 120 may store this data for later analysis and/or analyze the data in real-time to track a user's 131 interaction with the store item”).
determining, by the first party computing system, an item interest level for the at least one item based, at least in part, on the physical interaction type; (Stern: [0057] – “merchant system 120 may identify a metric associated with a user's interaction with an item 123. A metric in the disclosed embodiments may include any type of data that may be useful or beneficial to a merchant for performing the disclosed functions. For example, a metric may include the duration of time a user 131 spent interacting with an item 123 at its initial location or a subsequent location, whether user 131 carries the item 123 away from the initial location, other locations the user 131 carries an item 123 (and whether the user misplaces an item 123), whether the user ultimately purchases the item 123, data associated with other items the user 131 has interacted with in the past or on the current visit, and numerous other contemplated metrics”).
initiating, by the first party computing system, generation and presentation of a content item to the user via the user device, wherein the content item is based, at least in part, on the item interest level. (Stern: [0061] – “A set of rules associated with this metric may enable merchant system 120 to determine whether the particular user is in the market for new sunglasses. Such a determination may provide merchant system 120 with a follow-on action, such as for example, pushing an offer or discount to the user to potentially entice a sale”; Stern: [0072] – “merchant system 120 may be enabled to identify product information related to an item 123 and or similar items 123 and communicate such information to the user 131 in real-time. Again, this information may be provided via a client device or a display or other interface provided by merchant system 120 and may include user reviews of the identified item 123 or similar items”).
Stern does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
a device time timestamp, and a hashed user identifier generated by the user device by applying a cryptographic hash function to a user information attribute;
the sensor communication comprising a beacon timestamp;
identifying the user, by the first party computing system, by generating a first-party hashed list from a plurality of known user identifiers using a matching cryptographic hash function and determining a match between the hashed user identifier and at least one entry in the first-party hashed list;
a temporal match between the beacon timestamp and the device timestamp;
Notably, however, Stern does disclose a count of interactions over a period of time (Stern: [0061]), which would require tracking the time of interactions.
To that accord, Rao does teach a method comprising:
the sensor communication comprising a beacon timestamp; (Rao: [0048] – “The interactive marketing display provider's server 152 receives the device identifier and timestamp of when the shopper's mobile phone was sensed/detected by the data sensors (144-145) by the sensor provider's server”).
a temporal match between the beacon timestamp and the device timestamp; (Rao: [0048] – “the interactive marketing display provider server 152 processes the interaction data as well as the device identifier and timestamp provided by the sensor provider server 150 to attribute the interaction data with the shopper by associating the interaction data with the device identifier of the shopper's mobile phone based on the timestamp associated with interaction data and the timestamp of when the shopper's mobile phone was detected (or device identifier was acquired). Such attribution information may then be transmitted to one or more retailer servers”).
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 Stern disclosing the system of tracking user-item interactions to determine actions to perform for the user with the beacon timestamp and the temporal match between the beacon timestamp and device timestamp as taught by Rao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to influence purchasing decisions when shoppers are in front of products in retailer aisles (Rao: [0010]).
Stern in view of Rao does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
a hashed user identifier generated by the user device by applying a cryptographic hash function to a user information attribute;
identifying the user, by the first party computing system, by generating a first-party hashed list from a plurality of known user identifiers using a matching cryptographic hash function and determining a match between the hashed user identifier and at least one entry in the first-party hashed list;
Notably, however, Stern does disclose identifying user identification from the customer device (Stern: [0040]).
To that accord, Mimassi does teach a method comprising:
a hashed user identifier generated by the user device by applying a cryptographic hash function to a user information attribute; (Mimassi: [0099] – “A customer application 1503 makes a response message, which is sent to its own transmitter 1502, to the beacon's receiver 1506, and interpreted by the beacon's application 1507, with the customer's information 2420, which may be identifying information such as a username and password hash, just a username, the customer's real name, or some other singular or combination of identifying information”; Mimassi: [0096] – “The customer mobile device application may respond to the beacon ping with identifying info if the beacon is properly credentialed 2230, from the customer's own BTLE transmitter/receiver. Proper business beacon credentials may be something stored locally on the customer mobile device, or it may be stored on a server or cloud service that the application may communicate with over a network such as the Internet, and may be a defined set of credentials or a hash key that is defined by the application or application provider. A desk or table-affixed BTLE beacon, which may take the place of, or supplement and aid, a maître d'hôtel such as at a hotel or a similar front-of-business manager for other types of establishments, may forward any received customer info to a local or remote server to identify the customer, if they are a repeat-customer and known to the service 2240. They A brand-new customer who has never used the application before, or who has not used the application with this business before, may not be able to be identified, but as a new customer their identity within the application may be saved such as a hash of their username or other identifying information in compliance with local regulations and laws surrounding personal information”). In order to hash the user identifier, a hashing algorithm would have had to have been utilized.
identifying the user, by the first party computing system, by generating a first-party hashed list from a plurality of known user identifiers using a matching cryptographic hash function and determining a match between the hashed user identifier and at least one entry in the first-party hashed list; (Mimassi: [0097] – “identifying information could for instance take the form of a user's password hash and their username with the application, which may be checked against the database records securely”).
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 Stern in view of Rao disclosing the system of tracking user-item interactions to determine actions to perform for the user with the hashing of the user identifier and identifying the user by matching the hashed user identifier with an entry from the list of hashed identifiers as taught by Mimassi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to check identity information securely (Mimassi: [0097]).
Regarding Claim 3: Stern in view of Rao and Mimassi discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the physical device is located relative to the at least one item within a physical location associated with a merchant corresponding to the first party computing system. (Stern: [0030] – “Product tag(s) 128 may be affixed to store items and may comprise one or more components configured to generate a signal detectible by merchant hub(s) 124, For example, product tag(s) 128 may comprise a label that includes technology, including circuitry or other components, to allow merchant hub(s) 124 to track the location of the product tag(s) 128 within a retail or other environment including technology associated with using, for example, near field communication (NFC), RFID, infrared, electric fields, magnetic fields, WiFi, Bluetooth, etc. In some embodiments, product tag 128 may instead be associated with a point of interest, and may be affixed to a shelf or display or otherwise positioned to detect user interaction”).
Regarding Claim 4: Stern in view of Rao and Mimassi discloses the limitations of claim 3 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the interaction data comprises sensor data descriptive of the physical interaction, wherein the sensor data is received through one or more physical sensors of the physical device. (Stern: [0055] – “the merchant system 120 may be enabled to detect that a user 131 has interacted with an item positioned in the environment. In some embodiments, user interaction may be determined by a communication between a customer card 135 carried by user 131 and one of a plurality of product tags 128 affixed to store items (or other points of interest) within the retail environment associated with merchant system”; Stern: [0056] – “determine that a user 131 (with customer card 135) stood in front of a particular set of products or interacted with a store item 123, such as by picking up the item. Merchant system 120 may be enabled to determine and store numerous other data associated with the user interaction. For example, merchant system 120 may be able to determine the location of a store item 123 where the user interacts with the item 123. Additionally, merchant system 120 may be able to determine an amount of time the user 131 interacted with a store item 123 and whether the user 131 carried the item 123 away from its initial location”).
Regarding Claim 5: Stern in view of Rao and Mimassi discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the interaction data is indicative of an interaction time between the at least one item and the user. (Stern: [0057] – “a metric may include the duration of time a user 131 spent interacting with an item 123 at its initial location or a subsequent location”).
Regarding Claim 8: Stern in view of Rao and Mimassi discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the first party computing system is associated with a merchant, wherein the user is one of a plurality of first party users associated with the merchant. (Stern: [0026] – “Merchant system 120 may be an entity that offers goods, services, and/or information, such as a retailer (e.g., Macy's®, Target®, etc.), grocery store, or any other type of entity that offers goods and/or services that consumers may purchase”; Stern: [0057] – “merchant system 120 may receive and store numerous data points on a particular user's interaction with an item in the merchant environment A metric may be identified directly based on a user's sole interaction with an item 123, or may be identified based on an analysis over many data points associated with a user 131 or even other users”). The storing of past information and other users within the merchant server shows that the user is one of a plurality of users to are associated with the merchant.
Regarding Claim 10: Stern in view of Rao and Mimassi discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Stern further discloses the method further comprising:
receiving, by the first party computing system, user data associated with the user; (Stern: [0055] – “the merchant system 120 may be enabled to detect that a user 131 has interacted with an item positioned in the environment. In some embodiments, user interaction may be determined by a communication between a customer card 135 carried by user 131 and one of a plurality of product tags 128 affixed to store items (or other points of interest) within the retail environment associated with merchant system”).
generating, by the first party computing system, a user insight based, at least in part, on the item interest level and the user data; (Stern: [0060] – “if an identified metric is of a type corresponding to other items 123 that a user has interacted with during the current visit at the merchant, merchant system 120 may compare an item list and number of items with a set of rules corresponding to that type of metric. An example of one such rule may include one directed to a threshold number of items of a particular category. Merchant system 120 may determine, based on a comparison with a set of rules, that a user 131 may be purchasing items for a specific project, or engaging in comparison shopping”).
initiating, by the first party computing system, generating and presentation of the content item based, at least in part, on the user insight. (Stern: [0061] – “A set of rules associated with this metric may enable merchant system 120 to determine whether the particular user is in the market for new sunglasses. Such a determination may provide merchant system 120 with a follow-on action, such as for example, pushing an offer or discount to the user to potentially entice a sale”).
Regarding Claim 11: Stern in view of Rao and Mimassi discloses the limitations of claim 10 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the user data is indicative of at least one of a transaction history associated with the user or one or more user account preferences of a user account with a merchant. (Stern: [0070] – “merchant system 120 may access the user profile of user 131 to identify user 131's communication preferences and provide the analysis according to the user 131's preferred method”).
Regarding Claims 12 and 18: Claims 12 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claims 12 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13: Stern in view of Rao and Mimassi discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the first party computing system is associated with a merchant, wherein the at least one item is at least one of a plurality of first party items associated with a merchant. (Stern: [0026] – “Merchant system 120 may be an entity that offers goods, services, and/or information, such as a retailer (e.g., Macy's®, Target®, etc.), grocery store, or any other type of entity that offers goods and/or services that consumers may purchase”).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Stern (US 20210201362 A1). Rao (US 20140379480 A1), and Mimassi (US 20220148025 A1), in view of Kostka (US 20150079942 A1).
Regarding Claim 14: The combination of Stern, Rao, and Mimassi discloses the limitations of claim 13 above.
Stern does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
detecting a proximity of the user to a physical location associated with the merchant;
providing an initial first party communication to the user device based, at least in part, on the proximity of the user to the physical location associated with the merchant, wherein the initial first party communication comprises a request to execute a first party software application configured to run on the user device.
Notably, however, Stern does disclose detecting when a user enters or exits the retail environment (Stern: [0079]).
To that accord, Kostka does teach a method comprising:
detecting a proximity of the user to a physical location associated with the merchant; (Kostka: [0077] – “the method can trigger an automatic door (e.g., an electric sliding door) at an entrance to a store to open to a user outside the store only when: 1) the user's computing device is near enough to the entrance of the store to receive a unique identifier from a wireless beacon arranged at the entrance”).
providing an initial first party communication to the user device based, at least in part, on the proximity of the user to the physical location associated with the merchant, wherein the initial first party communication comprises a request to execute a first party software application configured to run on the user device. (Kostka: [0077] – “The method can also trigger (or transmit to the computing device a prompt to trigger) the native application to open on the user's computing device such that notifications and/or other communications related to the store can be delivered to the user through the native application”).
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 Stern, Rao, and Mimassi disclosing the system of tracking user-item interactions to determine actions to perform for the user with the detecting a proximity to the store and requesting to execute a first party software application as taught by Kostka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to deliver store related information to the user of the products/services available in the specific store (Kostka: [0077]).
Regarding Claim 15: The combination of Stern, Rao, and Mimassi, in view of Kostka, discloses the limitations of claim 14 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the physical device is one of a plurality of physical devices located relative to a plurality of first party items within the physical location, wherein each respective physical device corresponds to a respective sensor identifier, and wherein the operations further comprise: identifying the at least one item based, at least in part, on the sensor identifier. (Stern: [0030] – “Product tag(s) 128 may be affixed to store items and may comprise one or more components configured to generate a signal detectible by merchant hub(s) 124, For example, product tag(s) 128 may comprise a label that includes technology, including circuitry or other components, to allow merchant hub(s) 124 to track the location of the product tag(s) 128 within a retail or other environment”).
Regarding Claim 16: The combination of Stern, Rao, and Mimassi, in view of Kostka, discloses the limitations of claim 14 above.
Stern further discloses providing a first party advertising communication to the user device based, at least in part, on the item interest level, wherein the first party advertising communication is configured to cause a user interface of the first party software application to display a content item associated with the at least one item. (Stern: [0061] – “merchant system 120 may be able to determine that a particular user has handled a type of item, such as sunglasses, for example, several times over a predetermined period of time. A set of rules associated with this metric may enable merchant system 120 to determine whether the particular user is in the market for new sunglasses. Such a determination may provide merchant system 120 with a follow-on action, such as for example, pushing an offer or discount to the user to potentially entice a sale”).
Regarding Claim 17: The combination of Stern, Rao, and Mimassi, in view of Kostka, discloses the limitations of claim 16 above.
Stern further discloses wherein the content item comprises item details for the at least one item. (Stern: [0072] – “merchant system 120 may be enabled to identify product information related to an item 123 and or similar items 123 and communicate such information to the user 131 in real-time. Again, this information may be provided via a client device or a display or other interface provided by merchant system 120 and may include user reviews of the identified item 123 or similar items”).
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 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