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
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
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. 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 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 / generating an alert , wherein the generating the alert is responsive to the determining that the node has moved to the second node location outside the geofence.
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 node location is based on a first network connection to the radio network / an alert device associated with the retail location. The system/ memory/alert device 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 is based on a first network connection 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 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 is based on a first network connection 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 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 / communication information about the location of the item. 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Application No. 17/661,106 (Patent No. 12120577). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference is the following:
Limitations in Instant Application
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.
Limitations in Patent No. 12120577
based on a first network connection of a node of a retail location to network equipment enabling network service for the retail location, determining a first location of the node;
based on a second network connection of a mobile device to the network equipment, determining a second location of the mobile device;
determining whether a distance between the first location and the second location satisfies a distance threshold;
in response to a determination that the distance satisfies the distance threshold, generating message data representative of a message associated with the retail location;
and sending the message data to the mobile device, for the message to be presented via the mobile device.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to change “network connection” to “radio network”, and “determining whether a distance between the first location and second location satisfies a distance threshold” to “determining…that the node has moved to a second node location outside the geofence”, in order to cover slightly broader limitations. Furthermore, the claimed elements perform the same function as before.
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)
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; and generating, by the processing system, an advertising message targeted at the user of the mobile device. (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:
generating, by the processing system, a message inviting the user of the mobile device to enter the customer service location. (Florins, at least: 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”). “)
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.
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.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Gillard (ES 2583007 T3) in further view of Shaw (8626200).
As per Claim 12, Gillard teaches establishing a geofence relative to a retail location , as noted above, and the concept of a retail exit – at least page 2: “Similarly, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags comprise an integrated circuit coupled to an antenna (e.g., dipole antenna) or a resonant circuit and which operate to emit information when exposed to a predetermined electromagnetic field (by example, 13.56 MHz). A pedestal with the appropriate hardware is usually provided at the exit of a business (or at the point of sale (POS) as in many European businesses) to provide this operation of interrogation and detection of labels, as well as an alarm function; where a plurality of passages is used, for example, in a department store, mall, etc., it is desirable to provide a pedestal to detect the presence of EAS or RFID security tags in each passageway to detect and warn of theft of Store merchandise.”,
as well as “Although the invention has been described in detail and with reference to specific examples thereof, it will be apparent to someone skilled in the art that various changes and modifications can be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by The following claims.” Page 4, thus teaching establishing the retail location in an exit location of the retail location.
Shaw further teaches the concept of a retail location checkout area – at least: page 1-2: “(9) When a customer desires to purchase an item, the customer can use a check-out terminal operated by a store associate or a self check-out terminal for performing the check-out functions. The customer is often provided multiple payment options for purchasing the item including cash, credit card, debit card, check, gift certificate, gift card, traveler's checks, or government credits. These methods all require the customer to carry cash on hand, checks, or a number of cards for the varying payment methods.”
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Gillard’s existing features, with Shaw’s feature of a retail location checkout area,
Since 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 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Gillard (ES 2583007 T3) in further view of Florins (20160057571).
As per Claim 13, Florins further teaches:
determining a mobile device location of a mobile device, wherein the determining the mobile device location is based on a 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 whether a distance between the node location and the mobile device location satisfies a distance threshold; (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 a second alert, wherein the generating the second alert is responsive to determining that the distance satisfies the distance threshold; and communicating the second alert to the mobile device. second alert can comprise message. (at least: abstract)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Gillard’s existing features, with Florins’s features of determining a mobile device location of a mobile device, wherein the determining the mobile device location is based on a second network connection of the mobile device to the radio network; determining whether a distance between the node location and the mobile device location satisfies a distance threshold; generating a second alert, wherein the generating the second alert is responsive to determining that the distance satisfies the distance threshold; and communicating the second alert to the mobile device. second alert can comprise message, to select and provide geo-fenced personalized content to mobile devices – Florins, 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 14, Gillard in view of Florins teach: the second alert comprises: generating message data representative of a message, as noted above.
That the message is “ to return the retail item to the geofence” represents non-functional descriptive material that is entitled to little if any patentable weight per MPEP §2111.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Gillard (ES 2583007 T3) in further view of Florins (20160057571) in even further view of Shaw (8626200).
As per Claim 15, Shaw further teaches:
determining that a customer associated with the mobile device intends to purchase the retail item; and billing an account registered with the mobile device for the retail location. (at least: col2-3:” One aspect of the present invention is a method for providing and accessing membership accounts via a mobile device. The method includes sending a member identification request to a mobile device upon the mobile device being detected by a network. If a member identification is stored in a memory of the mobile device, the mobile device generates and sends a member identification response including the member identification. Upon receipt of the member identification, the member identification is authenticated and the mobile device user is authorized to access a membership account associated with the member identification. “ , “Another aspect of the present invention is a method for charging a remote account for goods and services. The method includes establishing a connection between a remote account provider and a transaction interface to facilitate a remote charging transaction; receiving a customer identification at the remote account provider; authorizing the customer identification, if the customer identification corresponds to a remote account authorized to accept remote charging transaction charges; receiving a charge request including charge details for a transaction between a customer and the transaction interface; charging the remote account according to the charge details; and sending a charge response to the transaction interface identifying the success or failure of the charge request.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Gillard’s existing features, combined with Florins’s existing features, with Shaw’s features of determining that a customer associated with the mobile device intends to purchase the retail item; and billing an account registered with the mobile device for the retail location, to use movile devices 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ritter (20060079247) in further view of Shaw (8626200).
As per Claim 18, Shaw further teaches:
communicating, to the mobile device, a navigational instruction from the mobile device to the item, located at the node location. (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 Ritter’s existing features, with Shaw’s feature of communicating, to the mobile device, a navigational instruction from the mobile device to the item, located at the node location,
To use mobile devices 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.
Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ritter (20060079247) in 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, 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 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 ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Gillard (ES 2583007 T3).
As per Claim 11, Gillard discloses 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: (the processor/memory represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: fig1/2 and associated/related text)
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; (at least: abstract)
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. (the device represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. at least: abstract, page 4: “ The security tag 44 emits a response signal which is tuned to the corresponding antenna frequency and then this signal is carried to the receiver 38. Where RFID security tags are used, it should be noted that the present invention includes, but not 45 is limited to 13.56 MHz and UHF (for example, 902-928 MHz). The FPGA 36 comprises several algorithms for demodulating the response signal together with the DSP 34. In particular, another aspect of the adaptability facility of the present invention 20 is touse the SDR methodology (software defined radio) in the receiver 38. This allows the ability to vary portions of the local oscillator from any of the modulator /demodulator operations instead of connecting to a fixed frequency scheme. External communication with the CPU board is achieved through two 50 communication channels 47A / 47B. Security label detections are dated with time and date in the corresponding PEB memory. The present invention includes a people counter which is constituted by a pair of beams that can detect the direction of movement of a person through the pedestals. Depending on which beam is interrupted before the other, the person's address can be known. 55 The pedestals incorporate a "smart alarm" operation whereby the operation of a detected security tag (using the people counter device) through the pedestals results in a corresponding alarm, that is, movement outside the establishment causes a First alarm, movement within the establishment causes a second alarm, and a static position between the pedestals causes a third alarm. For example, as Figure 5A shows, movement through the pedestals that corresponds to leaving a commercial place may more likely indicate theft of an item. This can activate an alarm sensor to show a "fast" and "hasty" sound, accompanied by "fast" or "hasty" alarm lamps; If a closedcircuit television (CCTV, for example, IP camera) is associated with that location, the CCTV can be activated. If, on the other hand, the movements through the pedestals that correspond to entering a commercial place (figure 53) may more likely correspond to a customer who enters the store with an EAS / RFID tag associated with something, or carried by that person. This may cause the alarm sensor to be "slow" with short duration of the alarm lamps. CCTV can also be activated. “)
Claims 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Ritter (20060079247).
As per Claim 16, Ritter discloses:
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)
As per Claim 17, Ritter discloses:
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. (at least: abstract, para 11-16, para 24, para 29)
Conclusion
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 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, 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).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
3/6/2026