CTNF 19/029,971 CTNF 90968 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Applicant claims the benefit of priority from the prior Japanese Patent Application No. 2024-90754, filed on June 4, 2024. Information Disclosure Statement The IDS submitted on 1/17/2025 has been considered. Interview Examiner invites the representative of this application to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to expedite prosecution of this application. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Applicant’s claims, filed 1/17/2025, have been entered. Claims 1-10 are currently pending in this application and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “detachably attached” in line 5. The metes and bounds of this limitation is unclear inasmuch as one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement of this claim because they are not appraised of the scope of the limitation “detachably attached”, and therefore in order to ensure that the scope of claim is clear and to demarcate the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent it is required that the claim language to be precise and unambiguous. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine the limitation of lines 5-7 of claim 1 to read as “a beacon device that is detachable from the information processing apparatus and transmits a beacon signal;” as described in paragraph [0033] of the Specification. Claims 2-9 inherit the deficiencies noted in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 recites the limitation “detachably attached” in line 14. The metes and bounds of this limitation is unclear inasmuch as one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement of this claim because they are not appraised of the scope of the limitation “detachably attached”, and therefore in order to ensure that the scope of claim is clear and to demarcate the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent it is required that the claim language to be precise and unambiguous. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine the limitation of lines 13-14 of claim 10 to read as “receiving a beacon signal transmitted from a beacon device that is detachable from the information processing apparatus…” as described in paragraph [0033] of the Specification. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the apparatus, as claimed in claims 1-4 and 6-9, are directed to a machine, the method, as claimed in claim 10 is directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03). Under Step 2A (prong 1 ): Claim 1, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea: transmits a signal; inputs product identification information of a product to be purchased, the product identification information being information capable of identifying the product; displays information relating to the product and notification information for the customer; and acquire the product identification information input and register the information relating to the product identified by the acquired product identification information, as information of a product to be purchased, display the registered information relating to the product, receive the signal transmitted, acquire information relating to a distance on a basis of the received signal, and display first notification information in accordance with the acquired information relating to the distance, the first notification information being different from the information relating to the product. Claim 10, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea: acquiring product identification information input, the product identification information being information for identifying a product; registering information relating to a product identified by the acquired product identification information, as information of a product to be purchased; displaying the registered information relating to the product; receiving a signal transmitted; acquiring information relating to a distance on a basis of the received signal; and displaying notification information in accordance with the acquired information relating to the distance. These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in claims 1 and 10 are certain methods of organizing human activity because displaying information related to a product to be purchased is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claims 1 and 10 recites an abstract idea. Under Step 2A (prong 2) , if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded): An information processing apparatus that is operated by a customer who comes to a store and is capable of moving around the store together with the customer, the information processing apparatus comprising : a beacon device that is detachable from the information processing apparatus and transmits a beacon signal; an input device that inputs product identification information of a product to be purchased, the product identification information being information capable of identifying the product; a communication interface that communicates with the beacon device; a display device that displays information relating to the product and notification information for the customer; and a controller configured to acquire the product identification information input by the input device and register the information relating to the product identified by the acquired product identification information, as information of a product to be purchased, display the registered information relating to the product on the display device , receive the beacon signal transmitted from the beacon device via the communication interface , acquire information relating to a distance between the information processing apparatus and the beacon device on a basis of the received beacon signal, and display first notification information on the display device in accordance with the acquired information relating to the distance, the first notification information being different from the information relating to the product. In this case, claim 10 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded): controlling an information processing apparatus that is operated by a customer who comes to a store and is capable of moving around the store together with the customer, the method comprising: acquiring product identification information input by an input device , the product identification information being information for identifying a product; registering information relating to a product identified by the acquired product identification information, as information of a product to be purchased; displaying the registered information relating to the product on a display device ; receiving a beacon signal transmitted from a beacon device that is detachable from the information processing apparatus via a communication interface ; acquiring information relating to a distance between the information processing apparatus and the beacon device on a basis of the received beacon signal ; and displaying notification information on the display device in accordance with the acquired information relating to the distance. Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (transmitting information, receiving/acquiring information, displaying information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1 and 10 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1 and 3; paragraphs [0023], [0025], [0051], [0065], [0079]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks). Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea. In addition to the above, the recited transmitting , receiving/acquiring , and displaying steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 21 and 27 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application. Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Returning to claims 1 and 10, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1 and 10 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1 and 10 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing or retrieving information from memory, presenting offers Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1 and 10 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claims 1 and 10 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting. Regarding claims 4 Dependent claim(s) 4, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 4 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1. Claim 4 sets forth: wherein the controller receives the beacon signal until processing relating to registration is terminated. Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of displaying information related to a product to be purchased. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1. Thus, dependent claim 4 is ineligible. Regarding claims 2, 3, and 6-9 Dependent claim(s) 2, 3, and 6-9 sets forth: further comprising a positioning device that acquires first location information indicating a location of the information processing apparatus in the store, wherein the beacon signal includes second location information indicating a location of the beacon device, and the controller calculates information relating to the distance between the information processing apparatus and the beacon device on a basis of the first location information and the second location information. wherein the controller acquires a received radio wave strength of the beacon signal as the information relating to the distance from the information processing apparatus. wherein the controller displays a product registration screen on the display device when the acquired distance has a predetermined value or less, the product registration screen including the registered information relating to the product. wherein the controller displays an alert screen on the display device when the acquired distance exceeds a predetermined value, the alert screen including the first notification information. further comprising a storage device, wherein the storage device includes a determination table that stores a display content corresponding to the distance between the information processing apparatus and the beacon device, and the controller refers to the determination table and acquires the display content corresponding to the acquired distance, to display on the display device a product registration screen including the registered information relating to the product or an alert screen including the first notification information. further comprising a memory that stores beacon identification information for identifying the beacon device, wherein the beacon signal includes beacon identification information of the beacon device, and the controller acquires the first location information via the positioning device when the beacon identification information stored in the memory matches the beacon identification information included in the received beacon signal. Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of displaying information related to a product to be purchased. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a positioning device”, “radio wave strength of the beacon signal”, “a product registration screen”, “an alert screen”, “a storage device”, “a product registration screen”, and “a memory”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1 and 10, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0023], [0025], [0051], [0065], [0079] indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, “ a positioning device”, “radio wave strength of the beacon signal”, “a product registration screen”, “an alert screen”, “a storage device”, “a product registration screen”, and “a memory” are recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, dependent claims 2, 3, and 6-9 are also ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen et al. (US 2020/0198680 A1) in view of Moreau et al. (US 2017/0228811 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Hagen et al., hereinafter Hagen, discloses an information processing apparatus that is operated by a customer who comes to a store and is capable of moving around the store together with the customer (abstract; Fig. 1), the information processing apparatus comprising : a beacon device that transmits a beacon signal (Figs. 1-2B, element 208; ¶0165 [the facility can place beacons around the facility that each transmit a unique identifier. The facility server 1102 can use these transmissions to determine 1254 the location of the physical shopping cart 300 within the facility. In one example, the strength of each signal from each beacon can be used as a proxy for distance to the beacon, and location within the facility can be determined by triangulating relative to the beacon locations]); an input device that inputs product identification information of a product to be purchased, the product identification information being information capable of identifying the product (Fig. 3A; ¶0004 [physical shopping carts can be equipped with one or more product detection systems (e.g., scanners, sensors, cameras) that can electronically tally products that are placed in physical shopping carts], ¶0042 [FIGS. 3A and 3B are examples of a physical shopping cart 300 having sensors to automatically detect items placed in the shopping cart. For example, the physical shopping cart 300 can include gesture sensors 302 and 304, a vision sensor 306, a cart-bottom sensor 308, and/or a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor 310, all in communication with a controller 314]); a communication interface that communicates with the beacon device (Figs. 3A-4, 6A, 7; ¶0042 [the physical shopping cart 300 can include gesture sensors 302 and 304, a vision sensor 306, a cart-bottom sensor 308, and/or a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor 310, all in communication with a controller 314. In some configurations, these sensors can include vision sensors, RFID sensors, IR sensors, lasers, etc.], ¶0053, ¶0117, ¶¶0123-0124, ¶¶0164-0165); a display device that displays information relating to the product and notification information for the customer (Figs. 1, 5B, 6A, 7; ¶0005, ¶¶0034-0035, ¶0040, ¶0069, ¶¶0097-0098); and a controller (Figs. 3A-3B, 6A, 7; ¶0054) configured to acquire the product identification information input by the input device and register the information relating to the product identified by the acquired product identification information, as information of a product to be purchased (Fig. 6A; ¶0040, ¶¶0082-0098), display the registered information relating to the product on the display device (Fig. 6A; ¶0040, ¶¶0082-0098), receive the beacon signal transmitted from the beacon device via the communication interface (¶0165), acquire information relating to a distance between the information processing apparatus and the beacon device on a basis of the received beacon signal (¶0165), and display first notification information on the display device in accordance with the acquired information relating to the distance, the first notification information being different from the information relating to the product (¶¶0095-0096 [the controller 604 can send an update-message to the mobile computing device 606 via a wireless data channel (e.g., Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy, ZigBee, or an 802.11 protocol.) This update-message can include information about the type of item (e.g., the pickle product), a count of the item (e.g., one in this case), and other information such as RFID Electronic Product Code (EPC,) barcode, coupon code, price, discount, location within store, date, and/or time]). While Hagen discloses a beacon device that transmits a beacon signal (Figs. 1-2B, element 208; ¶0165), Hagen does not explicitly disclose a beacon device that is detachable from the information processing apparatus. However, in the field of providing targeted content to a user shopping in store (abstract), Moreau et al., hereinafter Moreau, teaches beacon devices may be static beacons or mobile beacons including on shopping carts transmitting information to nearby devices (¶¶0024-0025). The step of Moreau is applicable to the apparatus of Hagen as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to in store shopping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the beacon device as taught by Hagen with the mobile beacon device as taught by Moreau. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the apparatus of Hagen in order to have a beacon that can move around the store at any time (¶0024). Regarding claim 2 , Hagen in view of Moreau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. While Hagen further discloses further comprising a positioning device that acquires first location information indicating a location of the information processing apparatus in the store (¶0078, ¶0091, ¶0117), wherein the beacon signal includes second location information (¶0165), and the controller calculates information relating to the distance between the information processing apparatus and the beacon device on a basis of the first location information and the second location information (¶0165), Hagen does not explicitly disclose wherein the beacon signal includes second location information indicating a location of the beacon device. However, Moreau further teaches a beacon signal that includes location information of the beacon device (¶¶0024-0025). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Hagen are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 3 , Hagen in view of Moreau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Hagen further discloses wherein the controller acquires a received radio wave strength of the beacon signal as the information relating to the distance from the information processing apparatus (¶0165). Regarding claim 4 , Hagen in view of Moreau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. While Hagen further discloses wherein the controller receives the beacon signal (¶0165), Hagen does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller receives the beacon signal until processing relating to registration is terminated . However, Moreau further teaches receiving the beacon signal until processing is terminated (see ¶¶0057-0060). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the received beacon signal as taught by Hagen with receiving the signal until termination as taught by Moreau. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the apparatus of Hagen in order to determine when a user device stopes receiving the beacon signal (¶0057). Regarding claim 5 , Hagen in view of Moreau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. While Hagen further discloses further comprising an attachment/detachment sensor that detects items attached to or detached from the information processing apparatus (Figs. 3A-3B; ¶¶0042-0048), wherein the controller displays second notification information on the display device when the processing relating to registration is terminated, the second notification information being different from the first notification information (¶¶0095-0096 [the controller 604 can send an update-message to the mobile computing device 606 via a wireless data channel (e.g., Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy, ZigBee, or an 802.11 protocol.) This update-message can include information about the type of item (e.g., the pickle product), a count of the item (e.g., one in this case), and other information such as RFID Electronic Product Code (EPC,) barcode, coupon code, price, discount, location within store, date, and/or time] in view of ¶0069 [a determination can be made as to whether the identified product is being placed into or removed from the cart (418)]). Hagen does not explicitly teach detecting the beacon device is attached to or detached from the information processing apparatus and sending a notification when the processing relating to registration is terminated and it is detected that the beacon device is not attached to the information processing apparatus. However, Moreau teaches a beacon device that is attached to a cart and detecting it is no longer attached to the cart (¶0060). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensors as taught by Hagen with detecting the beacon device is attached to the cart as taught by Moreau. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the apparatus of Hagen in order to determine when a beacon device transmitting a signal is no longer in the cart (¶0057). Regarding claim 6 , Hagen in view of Moreau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Hagen further discloses wherein the controller displays a product registration screen on the display device when the acquired distance has a predetermined value or less, the product registration screen including the registered information relating to the product (Fig. 6A; ¶0040, ¶0061, ¶¶0082-0098, ¶0165). Regarding claim 7 , Hagen in view of Moreau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. While Hagen discloses wherein the controller displays an alert screen on the display device, the alert screen including the first notification information (Fig. 6A; ¶0040, ¶0061, ¶¶0082-0098, ¶0165), Hagen does not explicitly disclose when the acquired distance exceeds a predetermined value. However, Moreau teaches when the acquired distance exceeds a predetermined value (¶¶0026-0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the acquired distance as taught by Hagen with exceeding a predetermined value as taught by Moreau. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the apparatus of Hagen in order to determine ranges between the beacon and device to represent proximity to a nearby beacon as location data (¶0027). Regarding claim 8 , Hagen in view of Moreau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. While Hagen further discloses further comprising a storage device (Fig. 7; ¶0151), wherein the storage device includes a determination table that stores a display content corresponding to between the information processing apparatus and the beacon device (¶¶0089-0090, ¶0165), and the controller refers to the determination table and acquires the display content corresponding to the acquired distance, to display on the display device a product registration screen including the registered information relating to the product or an alert screen including the first notification information (Fig. 6A; ¶0040, ¶0061, ¶¶0082-0098, ¶0165), Hagen does not explicitly disclose the table stores the distance. However, Moreau further teaches a database that stores location data from devices and beacons including a distance range between the beacon and device to display targeted content to the user (¶0021, ¶¶0027-0033, ¶0060). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the stored data as taught by Hagen with distance information as taught by Moreau. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the apparatus of Hagen in order to provide targeted content to the user based on distance between the beacon and user device (¶¶0027-0033). Regarding claim 9 , Hagen in view of Moreau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2. While Hagen further discloses further comprising a memory that stores beacon identification information for identifying the beacon device (Fig. 7; ¶0151, ¶0165), wherein the beacon signal includes beacon identification information of the beacon device (Fig. 7; ¶0165), and the controller acquires the first location information via the positioning device when the beacon identification information stored in the memory matches the beacon identification information included in the received beacon signal (Fig. 7; ¶0078, ¶0091, ¶0117, ¶0165). Regarding claim 10 , the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 1, except claim 1 is directed to an apparatus while claim 10 is directed to a process. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 1. Examiner’s Comment 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Reference U of the Notice of References Cited Non Patent Literature “Bemis mixes Sigfox and BLE for indoor and outdoor tracking of smart shopping carts” discloses a smart shopping cart with a beacon tracer to track in store movements. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. LINDSEY B. SMITH Examiner Art Unit 3688 /LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688 /Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 2 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 3 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 4 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 5 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 6 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 7 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 8 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 9 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 10 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 11 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 12 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 13 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 14 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 15 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 16 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 17 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 18 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 19 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 20 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 21 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/029,971 Page 22 Art Unit: 3688
Prosecution Insights