Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 6/15/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations) /fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: determining a node location of a node, wherein the determining the node location is based on first network connection of the node / determining a mobile device location of the mobile device, wherein determining the mobile device locations is based on the second network connection / determining that the mobile device is within a geofence associated with the customer service location/ generating message data representative of a message associated with the customer service location, wherein the generating the message data is responsive to the determining that the mobile device is within the geofence / communicating the message data to the mobile device for presentation by the mobile device to a user of the mobile device/ wherein the geofence is configured to encourage a passerby to enter a retail location associated with the customer service location, and wherein the message comprises a geofenced advertisement configured to encourage the passerby to enter the retail location. Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “ n invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail location or retail entity. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between the retail location or entity and other retailers or retail entities, other than the retail location or the retail entity 912 (e.g., a joint advertisement between the retail entity 912 and the retail entity 914).”, “an invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail entity (e.g., retail entity 912) or a retail location herein. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between a first retail entity and a second retail entity.”, ” such a message can comprise an invitation to enter the store (e.g., retail entity 912), an invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail location or retail entity. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between the retail location or entity and other retailers or retail entities, other than the retail location or the retail entity 912 (e.g., a joint advertisement between the retail entity 912 and the retail entity 914).”, “an invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail location. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between the retail location and another retail location, other than the retail location.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a processing system including a processor / a mobile device / a radio network that provides network service to a customer service location and determining node connections to the radio network / attaching a mobile device to the radio network, forming a second network connection of the mobile device to the radio network. The processing system/mobile device represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. Performing claimed limitations within a radio network/ determining node connections to the radio network / attaching a mobile device to the radio network, forming a second network connection of the mobile device to the radio network does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing claimed limitations within a radio network/ determining node connections to the radio network / attaching a mobile device to the radio network, forming a second network connection of the mobile device to the radio network does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is directed towards a device, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 11 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations) /fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: determining a first node location of a node / wherein the node is associated with a retail item of the retail location /
establishing a geofence within a portion of the retail location /determining that the node has moved to a second location outside the geofence / in response at least to the first distance threshold condition being met and at least the second distance threshold condition being met, billing an account registered with the mobile device for the retail location/ in response to at least determining that the node has moved to a third node location inside the geofence, providing a remittance to the account / determining that a second distance between the second node location and the second mobile device location satisfies the distance threshold, thereby establishing the second distance threshold condition/ determining that a first distance between the first node location and the first mobile device location satisfies a distance threshold, thereby establishing a first distance threshold condition.
Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “ n invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail location or retail entity. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between the retail location or entity and other retailers or retail entities, other than the retail location or the retail entity 912 (e.g., a joint advertisement between the retail entity 912 and the retail entity 914).”, “an invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail entity (e.g., retail entity 912) or a retail location herein. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between a first retail entity and a second retail entity.”, ” such a message can comprise an invitation to enter the store (e.g., retail entity 912), an invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail location or retail entity. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between the retail location or entity and other retailers or retail entities, other than the retail location or the retail entity 912 (e.g., a joint advertisement between the retail entity 912 and the retail entity 914).”, “an invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail location. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between the retail location and another retail location, other than the retail location.”, “the billing component 604 can bill an account registered with the user equipment and the retail location.”, “and the billing component 604 can therefore bill the account registered with the user equipment (and/or the retail entity or location). In various embodiments, the billing component 604 can comprise point of sale equipment, which can facilitate a transaction for an item inventory management, or other suitable equipment. It is noted that in various embodiments, if a customer (e.g., associated with the mobile device 120) puts an item (e.g., item 908) back on a shelf 902 (e.g., for a defined period of time), the customer can be refunded or issued a credit (e.g., by the billing component 604) for the item. In various embodiments, the billing component 604 can utilize billing preauthorizations, which can be canceled in response to an item being returned to a shelf, thus preventing the need for a refund. If the item is then removed from the shelf again, for instance, the billing component 604 can reinstitute a preauthorization or again bill the account registered with the user equipment (and/or the retail entity or location).”, “At 1216, a billing component (e.g., billing component 604) can bill an account associated with the user equipment (e.g., mobile device 120) and/or with the respective retail entity or retail location. At 1218, whether the billing of the account was successfully processed can be determined (e.g., by the billing component 604). If the billing was successful (e.g., Y at 1218), a lock of the node device can be unlocked from the item (e.g., by a security component 704) at 1224 and the process can end. If at 1218, the billing of the account was not successful (e.g., N at 1218), the process can proceed to 1220. At 1220, the billing component 604) can reattempt to bill the account with the user equipment (e.g., mobile device 120) and the retail entity or location. If the billing was successful (e.g., Y at 1222), a lock of the node device can be unlocked from the item (e.g., by a security component 704) at 1224 and the process can end. If at 1222, the billing of the account was again not successful (e.g., N at 1222), an alert representative of the billing failure can be generated (e.g., by the communication component 114 via an alert device 204 and/or 206) at 1226.”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 includes the additional elements of a processing system including a processor/ memory / determining node locations in a radio network, wherein the radio network provides network service to a retail location / determining the first node location is based on a first network connection to the radio network/ determining a first mobile device location of a mobile device, wherein the determining the first mobile device location is based on a second network connection of the mobile device to the radio network. The system/ memory represent generic computing elements. Performing the claimed limitations within a radio network / determining node locations in a radio network, wherein the radio network provides network service to a retail location / determining the node location and mobile device location based on network connections to the radio network do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/ field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the claimed limitations within a radio network / determining node locations in a radio network, wherein the radio network provides network service to a retail location / determining the node location and mobile device location based on network connections to the radio network do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/ field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 11 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is directed towards a machine readable medium, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 16 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations) /fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: determining a mobile device location / receiving a positioning request, wherein the positioning request is representative of a request to locate an item in the retail location / determining a location of the item in the retail location / communicating information about the location of the item / the communicating comprises communicating live map information, comprising a live map of the mobile device location and the location of the item within the retail location. Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “ n invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail location or retail entity. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between the retail location or entity and other retailers or retail entities, other than the retail location or the retail entity 912 (e.g., a joint advertisement between the retail entity 912 and the retail entity 914).”, “an invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail entity (e.g., retail entity 912) or a retail location herein. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between a first retail entity and a second retail entity.”, ” such a message can comprise an invitation to enter the store (e.g., retail entity 912), an invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail location or retail entity. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between the retail location or entity and other retailers or retail entities, other than the retail location or the retail entity 912 (e.g., a joint advertisement between the retail entity 912 and the retail entity 914).”, “an invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail location. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between the retail location and another retail location, other than the retail location.”, “Such navigational instructions can comprise a live map, presented via the mobile device 120, of the mobile device 120 and the node 116, and can comprise live “turn by turn” instructions. In this regard, a message herein can comprise a navigational instruction (e.g., generated via the navigation component 304) to an item (e.g., item 908), associated with the node (e.g., node 116) (e.g., attached to the node 116), located within the retail entity 912 and/or retail location.”, “At 1504, the process 1500 can comprise, in response to determining (e.g., by the location component 110) the location of the item, sending (e.g., via a communication component 114), by the network equipment, mapping information (e.g., generated via a navigation component 304), representative of a map of the location of the item (e.g., item 908) with respect to the user equipment (e.g., mobile device 120), to be rendered at the user equipment (e.g., mobile device 120).” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 16 includes the additional elements of a processing system including a processing system including a processor / a mobile device / attaching a mobile device to a radio network, wherein the radio network provides network service to a retail location forming a first network connection of the mobile device to the radio network and determining a mobile device location based on the first network connection of the mobile device to the radio network . The system/ mobile device represent generic computing elements. Performing the claimed limitations within a radio network / attaching a mobile device to a radio network, wherein the radio network provides network service to a retail location forming a first network connection of the mobile device to the radio network and determining a mobile device location based on the first network connection of the mobile device to the radio network does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/ field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the claimed limitations within a radio network / attaching a mobile device to a radio network, wherein the radio network provides network service to a retail location forming a first network connection of the mobile device to the radio network and determining a mobile device location based on the first network connection of the mobile device to the radio network does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/ field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 16 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-20 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claims 1/11/16. The claims further recite the additional elements of a display device, which represents a generic computing element that is recited at a high level of generality; the additional elements of a robot device/communicating navigational instruction to the robot device to collect the item for delivery to the user of the mobile device/ communicating navigational instruction to the robot device to restock a replacement item at the node location following delivery of the item to the user of the mobile device do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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, 2, 3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Florins (20160057571) in further view of Snowday (20220381875).
As per Claim 1, Florins teaches a method comprising:
attaching, by the processing system, a mobile device to the radio network, forming a second network connection of the mobile device to the radio network; (the system/mobile device /network represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: abstract- mobile device, fig 1 and associated/related text – computing system; the mobile device connects to the network – at least para 14, the network is wireless / network - at least para 14, 17)
wherein the geofence is configured to encourage a passerby to enter a retail location associated with the customer service location, and wherein the message comprises a geofenced advertisement configured to encourage the passerby to enter the retail location (the limitation of the message being “to encourage a passerby to enter a retail location” describes the content of the message. Florins teaches sending a targeted message/content to a user based on geofence data- at least para 15 , 39, fig5 and associated/related content; Florins teaches sending ad content to a user based on a geofence, as noted above, as well as “various modifications and changes may be made thereto, and additional embodiments may be implemented, without departing from the broader scope of the invention” -para 90: “in the preceding specification, various preferred embodiments have been described with reference to the accompanying drawings. It will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereto, and additional embodiments may be implemented, without departing from the broader scope of the invention as set forth in the claims that follow. The specification and drawings are accordingly to be regarded in an illustrative rather than restrictive sense.”; abstract, para 67: “As an example screenshot illustrating an exemplary implementation shown in FIG. 9A, a graphical user interface (GUI) 900, displayed via user device 110, may provide a notification 910 to a user that the user has entered geo-location 250-1 (e.g., “Welcome! You've entered AccessDome Area—Premium content is available for you”). Other types of notifications may be used (e.g., audio, haptic, etc.). GUI 900 may include one or more buttons 920, for example, which the user may use to execute the geo-location application (e.g., “Explore”) or to delete the notification and/or close the GUI (e.g., “Remind me later”) )
Florins teaches RFID devices within a store – at least para 47, which are construed as nodes. Snowday further teaches:
determining, by a processing system including a processor, a node location of a node in a radio network, (the processing system/processor represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: para 17 – tag locations [node locations], para 49 – radio frequency communication protocols)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Florins’s existing features, with Snowday’s feature of determining, by a processing system including a processor, a node location of a node in a radio network, to determine object-associated tag locations within a facility, and thus the object location in the facility – Snowday, abstract.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Florins in view of Snowday further teach:
wherein the radio network provides network service to a customer service location, (Florins – at least: para 47 – RFID devices within a store , wherein the store comprises departments/multi-suites [customer service location] – at least para 39, and radio network within the customer service location–at least para 14, the network is wireless / network - at least para 14, 17; Snowday teaches tags within a facility, and a radio network that provides service to the facility – at least para 16)
wherein the determining the node location is based on a first network connection of the node to the radio network; (Snowday, at least: para 17)
determining, by the processing system, a mobile device location of the mobile device, wherein the determining the mobile device location is based on the second network connection of the mobile device to the radio network; (Florins, at least: abstract, determining the location based on the network connection of the mobile device to the wireless/radio network – at least: para 14, para 13, fig 1 and associated/related text)
determining, by the processing system, that the mobile device is within a geofence associated with the customer service location; (Florins, at least: abstract; geofence associated with a retail store , wherein the store comprises departments/multi-suites [customer service location] – at least para 39)
generating, by the processing system, message data representative of a message associated with the customer service location, wherein the generating the message data is responsive to the determining that the mobile device is within the geofence; (Florins, at least: abstract )
communicating, by the processing system, the message data to the mobile device for presentation by the mobile device to a user of the mobile device. (Florins, at least: abstract)
As per Claim 2, Florins in view of Snowday teach:
determining, by the processing system, that the user of the mobile device is proximate the customer service location. (Florins, at least: abstract; geofence associated with a retail store , wherein the store comprises departments/multi-suites [customer service location] – at least para 39)
As per Claim 3, Florins in view of Snowday teach:
determining, by the processing system, that the user of the mobile device is proximate the customer service location based on the determining that the mobile device is within the geofence associated with the customer service location. (Florins, at least: abstract; geofence associated with a retail store , wherein the store comprises departments/multi-suites [customer service location] – at least para 39)
As per Claim 5, Florins in view of Snowday teach:
The message comprises at least one of…an advertisement (Florins, at least: para 15, 26, 16)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Florins (20160057571) in further view of Snowday (20220381875) in even further view of Khalid (20140324638).
As per Claim 4, Florins in view of Snowday teach mobile device users within a retail location, and node locations, as noted above; Khalid further teaches:
determining, by the processing system, a distance between the node location and the mobile device location; and determining, by the processing system, that the user of the mobile device is proximate the customer service location based on the distance between the node location and the mobile device location. (at least: para 15)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Florins’s existing features, combined with Snowday’s existing feature, with Khalid’s feature of determining, by the processing system, a distance between the node location and the mobile device location; and determining, by the processing system, that the user of the mobile device is proximate the customer service location based on the distance between the node location and the mobile device location, to provide a targeted retail experience using a retail kiosk/mobile device – Khalid, abstract . Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Florins (20160057571) in further view of Snowday (20220381875) in even further view of Yopp (10157388).
As per Claim 10, Florins in view of Snowday teach mobile device users within a retail location, , and node locations, as well as:
generating, by the processing system, second message data, wherein the generating the second message data is responsive to the determining that the mobile device is within the geofence; and communicating, by the processing system, the second message data to a display [user device display] (Florins, at least: abstract)
Yopp further teaches:
Communicating…message data to a display device associated with the customer service location. (at least: abstract, fig 1 and associated/related text – icon 24)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Florins’s existing features, combined with Snowday’s existing feature, with Yopp’s feature of communicating…message data to a display device associated with the customer service location, to present targeted content to consumers in a store – Yopp, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Florins (20160057571) in further view of Snowday (20220381875) in even further view of Shaw (8626200).
As per Claim 6, Florins in view of Snowday teach the customer service location comprises a retail location, as noted above. Shaw further teaches:
receiving, by the processing system, from the mobile device, a positioning request, wherein the positioning request is representative of a request to locate an item in the retail location; and determining, by the processing system, a location of the item in the retail location; and communicating, by the processing system, to the mobile device, information about the location of the item to the mobile device. ( at least: claim 8)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Florins’s existing features, combined with Snowday’s existing feature, with Shaw’s feature of receiving, by the processing system, from the mobile device, a positioning request, wherein the positioning request is representative of a request to locate an item in the retail location; and determining, by the processing system, a location of the item in the retail location; and communicating, by the processing system, to the mobile device, information about the location of the item to the mobile device, to enhance the customer experience – Shaw, at least: abstract, col1, lines 15-20. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 7, Florins in view of Snowday teach retailer items associated with nodes, as noted above. Shaw further teaches:
communicating, by the processing system, to the mobile device, a navigational instruction to the item, located within the retail location (Shaw, at least: claim 8)
As per Claim 8, Florins in view of Snowday in further view of Shaw teach:
communicating, by the processing system, to the mobile device, mapping information representative of a map of the location of the item with respect to the mobile device, to be rendered at the mobile device for the user of the mobile device. (Shaw, at least: claim 8, fig 14 and associated/related text)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Florins (20160057571) in further view of Snowday (20220381875) in further view of Shaw (8626200), in even further view of Stiernagle (20160104220).
As per Claim 9, Florins in view of Snowday in further view of Shaw teach retailer items/ user of the mobile device within the retailer, as noted above. Stiernagle further teaches:
communicating, by the processing system, to a robot device, a navigational instruction to the item for use by the robot device to collect the item for delivery to the user (at least: abstract, para 34; fig7 and associated/related text – icons 752,762,772).
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Florins’s existing features, combined with Snowday’s existing feature, combined with Shaw’s existing features, with Stiernagle’s feature of communicating, by the processing system, to a robot device, a navigational instruction to the item for use by the robot device to collect the item for delivery to the user, to dispense merchandise items within a retail location via the use of robot devices -Stiernagle, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 16, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ritter (20060079247) in further view of Shaw (8626200).
As per Claim 16, Ritter teaches:
a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: attaching a mobile device to a radio network, wherein the radio network provides network service to a retail location forming a first network connection of the mobile device to the radio network; (the system/processor/mobile device represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: abstract, para 16, para 46)
determining a mobile device location of the mobile device, wherein the determining the mobile device location is based on the first network connection of the mobile device to the radio network; (at least: para 46, abstract)
receiving, from the mobile device, a positioning request, wherein the positioning request is representative of a request to locate an item in the retail location; determining a location of the item in the retail location; and communicating to the mobile device, information about the location of the item to the mobile device. (at least: abstract, claim 1)
Shaw further teaches:
The communicating comprises communicating live map information to be presented via the mobile device, comprising a live map of the mobile device and the location of the item within the retail location. (Shaw, at least: claim 8, fig 14 and associated/related text)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ritter’s existing features, with Shaw’s feature of the communicating comprises communicating live map information to be presented via the mobile device, comprising a live map of the mobile device and the location of the item within the retail location, to enhance the customer experience – Shaw, at least: abstract, col1, lines 15-20. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 17, Ritter in view of Shaw teach:
determining, a node location of a node in the radio network, wherein the node is associated with the item, wherein the determining the node location is based on a second network connection of the node to the radio network; and determining the location of the item in the retail location based on the node location. (Ritter, at least: abstract, para 11-16, para 24, para 29)
As per Claim 18, Ritter in view of Shaw teach:
communicating, to the mobile device, a navigational instruction from the mobile device to the item, located at the node location. (Shaw, at least: claim 8)
Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ritter (20060079247) in further view of Shaw (8626200), in even further view of Stiernagle (20160104220).
As per Claim 19, Stiernagle further teaches:
communicating, to a robot device, a navigational instruction to the item for use by the robot device to collect the item for delivery to a user of the mobile device. (at least: abstract, para 34; fig7 and associated/related text – icons 752,762,772).
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ritter’s existing features, combined with Shaw’s existing features, with Stiernagle’s features of communicating, to a robot device, a navigational instruction to the item for use by the robot device to collect the item for delivery to a user of the mobile device, to dispense merchandise items within a retail location via the use of robot devices -Stiernagle, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 20, Ritter in view of Shaw in further view of Stiernagle further teach:
communicating, to the robot device, a navigational instruction to restock a replacement item at the node location following delivery of the item to the user of the mobile device. (Stiernagle, at least: abstract, para18, para 24 ).
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 11-15. Gillard (ES 2583007 T3) teaches a device comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: determining a node location of a node in a radio network, wherein the radio network provides network service to a retail location, wherein the node is associated with a retail item of the retail location, and wherein the determining the node location is based on a first network connection of the node to the radio network; establishing, by the radio network, a geofence within a portion of the retail location; determining, by the processing system, that the node has moved to a second node location outside the geofence; and generating an alert via an alert device associated with the retail location, wherein the generating the alert is responsive to the determining that the node has moved to the second node location outside the geofence. However, Gillard fails to teach the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claim 11: determining a first mobile device location of a mobile device, wherein the determining the first mobile device location is based on a second network connection of the mobile device to the radio network; determining that a first distance between the first node location and the first mobile device location satisfies a distance threshold, thereby establishing a first distance threshold condition; establishing, by the radio network, a geofence within a portion of the retail location; determining that the node has moved to a second node location outside the geofence; determining that the mobile device has moved to a second mobile device location outside the geofence; determining that a second distance between the second node location and the second mobile device location satisfies the distance threshold, thereby establishing a second distance threshold condition; in response at least to the first distance threshold condition being met and at least the second distance threshold condition being met, billing an account registered with the mobile device for the retail location; and in response to at least determining that the node has moved to a third node location inside the geofence, providing a remittance to the account.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Claim 1 was improperly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the Office Action does not establish that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as required under the Supreme Court's Alice/Mayo framework, as interpreted by the USPTO. The rejection at most suggests that claim 1 may "involve" or be "used in connection with" advertising; however, patent-ineligibility under § 101 requires more than the mere presence of an abstract concept in the claim. The proper inquiry is whether the claim, considered as a whole, is directed to the alleged judicial exception.
Here, claim 1 recites a network-based, location-aware communication technique
implemented using a radio network, including attaching a mobile device to the radio network, determining device and node locations based on network connections, determining geofence membership, and communicating message data for presentation at the mobile device. The Office Action effectively collapses this multi-step, network-location-driven process into the label "advertising/marketing" without showing that the claim's focus is the abstract idea itself rather than a location-triggered network communication mechanism.
Further, the Office Action does not meaningfully analyze key recitations under Step 2A, Prong Two (integration into a practical application) or Step 2B (significantly more). For example, the claim requires "determining ... a node location ... based on a first network connection ... to the radio network," "attaching ... a mobile device to the radio network," and "determining ... a mobile device location ... based on the second network connection." These are not merely generic "business" steps; they are technical operations relating to radio-network attachment and location determination tied to network connections. Yet the Office Action does not explain why these network-based location determinations are part of the alleged abstract idea, nor does it analyze whether these limitations integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application (e.g., by tying the action to real-time radio network conditions and a specific location-based trigger). Instead, the Office Action characterizes the "radio network" as a mere technological environment and concludes, without adequate explanation, that such limitations cannot confer eligibility. Additionally, the Office Action does not adequately address the claim's particularized geofence-triggered message generation and communication sequence. Claim 1 requires determining that the mobile device is within a geofence and, responsive to that determination, generating and communicating message data for presentation. This is not a mental process or a result that can be performed "in the abstract," but an applied technical workflow that depends on obtaining network-based location information, evaluating geofence membership, and causing a network communication to a mobile device for display. The Office Action also does not substantively analyze the newly recited features that "the geofence is configured to encourage a passerby to enter a retail location" and that the message comprises a "geofenced advertisement," including whether these features (in combination with the radio network attachment, network- connection-based location determinations, and geofence logic) reflect a practical application rather than an abstract idea.
For at least these reasons, the §101 rejection is procedurally and substantively deficient. The Office Action does not demonstrate that claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception, and the Office Action fails to provide a reasoned analysis of the claim's additional technical limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B. Accordingly, withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2-10, which depend therefrom, is respectfully requested.
B. Claims 11-15
Claim 11 was improperly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the Office Action does not establish that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as required under the Supreme Court's Alice/Mayo framework, as interpreted by the USPTO. The fact that the claim includes commercial concepts such as "billing" or "remittance" does not render the claim per se ineligible. The proper inquiry is whether the claim, as a whole, is focused on the alleged judicial exception rather than on a specific, applied technological process. Here, claim 11 recites a device configured to perform a particularized, location- and movement-driven control sequence in a radio network: determining node and mobile-device
locations based on network connections, determining distance-threshold conditions, detecting movement outside and inside a geofence, and conditionally triggering account billing and remittance based on those technical determinations. The Office Action's analysis does not show that this claimed operational sequence itself is the alleged abstract idea. Further, the Office Action does not meaningfully analyze key recitations under Step 2A, Prong Two (integration into a practical application) or Step 2B (significantly more). For example, the claim requires determining a first node location "based on a first network connection of the node to the radio network," determining a first mobile device location "based on a second network connection," establishing a geofence "by the radio network," and determining multiple location changes (second/third node locations and a second mobile-device location) relative to the geofence. These recitations are not merely generic "business" steps; they are technical operations tied to radio-network connectivity, network-based location determination, and controlled state transitions (inside/outside geofence and distance-threshold conditions). The Office Action does not explain why those network-connection-based location and movement determinations are part of any purported abstract idea, nor does it analyze whether they integrate the claim into a practical application, such as a location-aware retail automation workflow. Additionally, the Office Action does not adequately address the claim's specific conditional logic that links billing and remittance to two distinct distance-threshold conditions and geofence-based movement events. Claim 11 requires (i) a first distance-threshold condition between initial node/mobile locations, (ii) a second distance-threshold condition between second node/mobile locations after both have moved outside the geofence, and (iii) a remittance event tied to the node returning inside the geofence. These are concrete, non-mental, system-controlled determinations and actions that depend on real-world movement and radio-network-derived location information. The Office Action's conclusory characterization of the claim as a "commercial interaction" does not substitute for the required Step 2A/2B analysis of whether these limitations reflect a practical application and/or amount to significantly more than any alleged exception.
For at least these reasons, the §101 rejection is procedurally and substantively deficient. The Office Action does not demonstrate that claim 11 is directed to a judicial exception, and the Office Action fails to provide a reasoned analysis of the claim's additional technical limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B. Accordingly, withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of independent claim 11, and claims 12-15, which depend therefrom, is respectfully requested.
C. Claims 16-20
Claim 16 was improperly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the Office Action does not establish that the claim is directed to an abstract idea under the Supreme Court's Alice/Mayo framework, as interpreted by the USPTO. Even if claim 16 could be said to "involve" a retail transaction or customer-assistance concept at a high level, § 101 requires more than the mere presence of a commercial context. The proper inquiry is whether the claim, considered as a whole, is focused on a judicial exception, as opposed to a specific, applied technological solution. Claim 16 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium with executable instructions for implementing a network-based positioning and mapping workflow that responds to a positioning request and provides live map information for presentation on a mobile device. Further, the Office Action does not meaningfully analyze key technical recitations under Step 2A, Prong Two (integration into a practical application) or Step 2B (significantly more). For example, claim 16 requires "attaching a mobile device to a radio network" to form a network connection, determining a mobile device location "based on" that network connection, receiving a positioning request, determining an item location in the retail location, and communicating "live map information" comprising a live map of both the mobile device and the item location. The Office Action does not explain why the claim's focus is an abstract idea rather than a concrete radio-network-based positioning and mapping mechanism, nor does it analyze whether the live-map output integrates any alleged exception into a practical application that improves the user's ability to locate an item within a physical environment. In particular, the recitation of communicating "live map information" is not a mere statement of a desired result; it requires producing and transmitting a specific form of dynamically usable mapping output that depicts both the mobile device and the item location for presentation via the mobile device. The Office Action does not show that producing and communicating such live map information is part of any alleged abstract idea, and the Office Action does not address whether the claimed sequence-network attachment, network- connection-based location determination, request-driven item location determination, and live map communication-constitutes an integrated technical solution rather than generic "information delivery." Accordingly, the §101 rejection is procedurally and substantively deficient. The Office Action does not demonstrate that claim 16 is directed to a judicial exception, and the Office Action fails to provide a reasoned analysis of the claim's additional technical limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B. Withdrawal of the §101 rejection of independent claim 16, and claims 17-20, which depend therefrom, is respectfully requested.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea/judicial exception, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “ invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail location or retail entity. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between the retail location or entity and other retailers or retail entities, other than the retail location or the retail entity 912 (e.g., a joint advertisement between the retail entity 912 and the retail entity 914).”, “an invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail entity (e.g., retail entity 912) or a retail location herein. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between a first retail entity and a second retail entity.”, ” such a message can comprise an invitation to enter the store (e.g., retail entity 912), an invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail location or retail entity. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between the retail location or entity and other retailers or retail entities, other than the retail location or the retail entity 912 (e.g., a joint advertisement between the retail entity 912 and the retail entity 914).”, “an invitation to make an in-store or online purchase, a coupon, an advertisement (e.g., a target advertisement), a deal, or another suitable message associated with the retail location. In various implementations, the message can comprise a geo-fenced advertisement to bring a passerby intended to encourage a passerby to enter the retail location. In another implementation, the message can comprise a joint advertisement between the retail location and another retail location, other than the retail location.”, “communication component 114 can, in response to determining (e.g., via the location component 110) the location of the item, send mapping information (e.g., as generated by the navigation component 304) representative of a map of the location of the item with respect to the user equipment, to be rendered at the user equipment (e.g., the mobile device 120).”, “in response to a determination that the user equipment and the item have moved outside the first threshold distance and into the geofence, billing, by the network equipment, an account registered with the user equipment and the retail location. In some embodiments, the above method can further comprise: in response to a determination that the billing of the account was successfully processed, unlocking, by the network equipment, a lock of the node device from the item.”, “the billing component 604 can therefore bill the account registered with the user equipment (and/or the retail entity or location). In various embodiments, the billing component 604 can comprise point of sale equipment, which can facilitate a transaction for an item inventory management, or other suitable equipment. It is noted that in various embodiments, if a customer (e.g., associated with the mobile device 120) puts an item (e.g., item 908) back on a shelf 902 (e.g., for a defined period of time), the customer can be refunded or issued a credit (e.g., by the billing component 604) for the item. In various embodiments, the billing component 604 can utilize billing preauthorizations, which can be canceled in response to an item being returned to a shelf, thus preventing the need for a refund. If the item is then removed from the shelf again, for instance, the billing component 604 can reinstitute a preauthorization or again bill the account registered with the user equipment (and/or the retail entity or location).” The pending claims, when implemented, do not improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
The assertion of the abovementioned double patenting rejections is acknowledged and an appropriate course of action to mitigate these rejections will be considered upon an indication of allowance of claimed subject matter in the present application. If after examination of the present application, the remaining rejection is the present double patenting rejection, it is respectfully requested that the Examiner call the undersigned to discuss filing a terminal disclaimer to place the application in condition for allowance.
The double patenting rejection of Claim 11 present in the previous Office Action has been overcome and has been withdrawn.
Gillard does not disclose, expressly or inherently, each and every element of claim 11 as amended. Gillard is directed to anti-theft EAS/RFID pedestals and alarms. Gillard is unrelated to the identifying and responding to the specific conditions for billing and remittance of claim 11 as remitted. That is, Gillard's discussion of alarms and store security response does not anticipate the claimed account remittance logic tied to tracked movements and geofence re-entry. Accordingly, because Gillard fails to disclose at least these amended limitations, Gillard cannot anticipate claim 11, and withdrawal of the § 102 rejection is respectfully requested.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 11-15. Gillard (ES 2583007 T3) teaches a device comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: determining a node location of a node in a radio network, wherein the radio network provides network service to a retail location, wherein the node is associated with a retail item of the retail location, and wherein the determining the node location is based on a first network connection of the node to the radio network; establishing, by the radio network, a geofence within a portion of the retail location; determining, by the processing system, that the node has moved to a second node location outside the geofence; and generating an alert via an alert device associated with the retail location, wherein the generating the alert is responsive to the determining that the node has moved to the second node location outside the geofence. However, Gillard fails to teach the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claim 11: determining a first mobile device location of a mobile device, wherein the determining the first mobile device location is based on a second network connection of the mobile device to the radio network; determining that a first distance between the first node location and the first mobile device location satisfies a distance threshold, thereby establishing a first distance threshold condition; establishing, by the radio network, a geofence within a portion of the retail location; determining that the node has moved to a second node location outside the geofence; determining that the mobile device has moved to a second mobile device location outside the geofence; determining that a second distance between the second node location and the second mobile device location satisfies the distance threshold, thereby establishing a second distance threshold condition; in response at least to the first distance threshold condition being met and at least the second distance threshold condition being met, billing an account registered with the mobile device for the retail location; and in response to at least determining that the node has moved to a third node location inside the geofence, providing a remittance to the account.
Claim 1 has been amended to further recite "wherein the geofence is configured to
encourage a passerby to enter a retail location associated with the customer service location, and wherein the message comprises a geofenced advertisement configured to encourage the passerby to enter the retail location." Support for the amendment can be found, for example, in the non- limitation disclosures of paragraphs [0043], [0052], [0059], and [0062] of the specification.
The combination of Florins and Snowday fails to teach or suggest claim 1 as amended. In particular, Florins is directed to generating a message regarding the availability of premium content when a user has entered a geolocation. See Florins [0067] (cited in Office Act. 12). That is, rather than configuring a geofence in such a manner as that a geofenced advertisement can be configured to encourage a passerby to enter a retail location, Florins at most teaches or suggests configuring a geofence to provide information to a user who has already entered into a particular area. This is illustrated in Figure 9A of Florins, which is reproduced below from the supplemental content filed therewith.
Moreover, the Office Action does not adequately address the claim's network-connection- based location determinations, including "determining...a node location...based on a first network connection of the node to the radio network," "attaching...a mobile device to the radio network, forming a second network connection," and "determining...a mobile device location...based on the second network connection." The rejection provides no clear teaching in the cited references, as applied, that these network-connection-based location determinations are performed in the manner required by the claim as amended, nor does it provide a sufficiently supported rationale for modifying the cited art to meet these recitations. For at least these reasons, the Office Action has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness for amended claim 1. Accordingly, withdrawal of the § 103 rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-10, which depend therefrom, is respectfully requested.
Claim 1 is taught by Florins in view of Snowday, as noted above.
As per Claim 1, Florins teaches a method comprising:
attaching, by the processing system, a mobile device to the radio network, forming a second network connection of the mobile device to the radio network; (the system/mobile device /network represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: abstract- mobile device, fig 1 and associated/related text – computing system; the mobile device connects to the network – at least para 14, the network is wireless / network - at least para 14, 17)
wherein the geofence is configured to encourage a passerby to enter a retail location associated with the customer service location, and wherein the message comprises a geofenced advertisement configured to encourage the passerby to enter the retail location (the limitation of the message being “to encourage a passerby to enter a retail location” describes the content of the message. Florins teaches sending a targeted message/content to a user based on geofence data- at least para 15 , 39, fig5 and associated/related content; Florins teaches sending ad content to a user based on a geofence, as noted above, as well as “various modifications and changes may be made thereto, and additional embodiments may be implemented, without departing from the broader scope of the invention” -para 90: “in the preceding specification, various preferred embodiments have been described with reference to the accompanying drawings. It will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereto, and additional embodiments may be implemented, without departing from the broader scope of the invention as set forth in the claims that follow. The specification and drawings are accordingly to be regarded in an illustrative rather than restrictive sense.”; abstract, para 67: “As an example screenshot illustrating an exemplary implementation shown in FIG. 9A, a graphical user interface (GUI) 900, displayed via user device 110, may provide a notification 910 to a user that the user has entered geo-location 250-1 (e.g., “Welcome! You've entered AccessDome Area—Premium content is available for you”). Other types of notifications may be used (e.g., audio, haptic, etc.). GUI 900 may include one or more buttons 920, for example, which the user may use to execute the geo-location application (e.g., “Explore”) or to delete the notification and/or close the GUI (e.g., “Remind me later”) )
Florins teaches RFID devices within a store – at least para 47, which are construed as nodes. Snowday further teaches:
determining, by a processing system including a processor, a node location of a node in a radio network, (the processing system/processor represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: para 17 – tag locations [node locations], para 49 – radio frequency communication protocols)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Florins’s existing features, with Snowday’s feature of determining, by a processing system including a processor, a node location of a node in a radio network, to determine object-associated tag locations within a facility, and thus the object location in the facility – Snowday, abstract.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Florins in view of Snowday further teach:
wherein the radio network provides network service to a customer service location, (Florins – at least: para 47 – RFID devices within a store , wherein the store comprises departments/multi-suites [customer service location] – at least para 39, and radio network within the customer service location–at least para 14, the network is wireless / network - at least para 14, 17; Snowday teaches tags within a facility, and a radio network that provides service to the facility – at least para 16)
wherein the determining the node location is based on a first network connection of the node to the radio network; (Snowday, at least: para 17)
determining, by the processing system, a mobile device location of the mobile device, wherein the determining the mobile device location is based on the second network connection of the mobile device to the radio network; (Florins, at least: abstract, determining the location based on the network connection of the mobile device to the wireless/radio network – at least: para 14, para 13, fig 1 and associated/related text)
determining, by the processing system, that the mobile device is within a geofence associated with the customer service location; (Florins, at least: abstract; geofence associated with a retail store , wherein the store comprises departments/multi-suites [customer service location] – at least para 39)
generating, by the processing system, message data representative of a message associated with the customer service location, wherein the generating the message data is responsive to the determining that the mobile device is within the geofence; (Florins, at least: abstract )
communicating, by the processing system, the message data to the mobile device for presentation by the mobile device to a user of the mobile device. (Florins, at least: abstract)
See Office action above for the detailed, reasoned prior art analysis of the pending claims.
Remaining arguments: Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
6/19/2026
Prosecution Insights