US 12423718

As a senior US patent analyst, here is a concise summary of US patent 12,423,718 based on the provided authoritative text.

Patent Summary:

• Title: Methods and systems for providing customer assistance in a retail store
• Assignee: Alpha Modus Corp is listed as both the Original and Current Assignee.
• Inventors: Michael Garel, Jim Wang
• Filing Date: October 3, 2024
• Issue Date: September 23, 2025 (as per the publication date of the B2 patent)
• Abstract: The patent details a system and method for use in a retail store where information monitoring devices identify a customer and track the products they pick up or handle. The system then tracks the customer to the point-of-sale area, identifies the products they are actually purchasing, and compares this with the items they considered. Based on a real-time analysis of this comparison, the system selects a sales associate and sends a communication, enabling the associate to engage with the customer armed with specific insights into their shopping behavior.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

The provided patent text does not contain a formally numbered claims section. However, the "Summary of Invention" section describes the invention in three distinct aspects that define the core of the intellectual property protection, which are analogous to independent claims.

1. The System Claim (A system for monitoring and analyzing behavior):
In simple terms, this protects a physical setup for monitoring people within a location like a retail store. The essential components are:

• A central computer (server).
• One or more "information monitoring devices" (e.g., cameras, Wi-Fi tracking sensors, interactive kiosks) connected to the server.
• Databases to store the collected information.
• Specialized software (a "plurality of modules") that runs on the server to analyze the data. Critically, this software must include both a "demographic intelligence module" (to determine attributes like age, gender, or sentiment) and a "tracking module" (to follow a person's path and location).

2. The Method Claim (A method for gathering and analyzing information):
This protects the actual process or steps performed by the system. In plain language, the method consists of:

• Using monitoring devices to collect information about a person in the store.
• Analyzing this information using the server's software modules. A key part of this method is the use of both the demographic intelligence module and the tracking module to link a person's characteristics with their physical movements and behavior.

3. The Computer-Readable Medium Claim (A non-statutory computer-readable storage medium):
This protects the software itself, independent of the hardware. It covers a physical, non-temporary storage device (such as a hard drive, server memory, or a disc) that contains the computer code. When this code is executed by a processor, it carries out the steps of the method claim described above. This ensures that the software that enables this monitoring and analysis is also protected by the patent.

A search of the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) 2026 dockets for litigation involving patent number 12,423,718 yielded no results. However, the patent text notes family litigation related to this patent family, with a case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (2:25-cv-01145).

As a senior US patent analyst, based on the provided patent information and a search of publicly available litigation records, I can report the following regarding litigation involving US patent 12,423,718.

The patent owner, Alpha Modus, Corp., has engaged in a broad patent enforcement campaign, filing numerous lawsuits against major retailers. While US patent 12,423,718 is a recent issuance (September 23, 2025), it has been cited in at least one case as part of a larger portfolio of asserted patents.

The authoritative patent text for US patent 12,423,718 explicitly notes "Family has litigation" and references a case in the Texas Eastern District Court with the number 2:25-cv-01145. SEC filings from Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. confirm this litigation and name the defendants.

Known Litigation

1. Alpha Modus, Corp. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

• Plaintiff: Alpha Modus, Corp.
• Defendants: Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-01145
• Filing Date: October 14, 2025
• Status/Outcome: According to SEC filings from late 2025 and early 2026, the case is in its initial pleading stage.
• Details: The complaint asserts that Lowe's in-store systems, which use computer vision and media platforms for customer engagement and inventory management, infringe on a portfolio of Alpha Modus patents. A 10-K filing by Alpha Modus in April 2026 confirms that US patent 12,423,718 (referred to as the '718 patent) is among those asserted in a suit against another defendant, Stratacache, Inc., indicating its active role in the company's litigation strategy.

It is noteworthy that the case number 2:25-cv-01145 is also associated with unrelated cases in other jurisdictions, which is a common occurrence in the federal court system. However, the SEC filings from the plaintiff, Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc., definitively link this case number to their litigation against Lowe's in the Eastern District of Texas.

Broader Litigation Context

Alpha Modus has filed numerous other patent infringement lawsuits in the same jurisdiction against other major retailers. As of April 2026, the company had filed 24 patent enforcement actions and secured six early-stage settlements. This broader campaign involves a family of related patents covering technologies for real-time consumer behavior analysis, AI-driven personalization, and inventory management, with the Eastern District of Texas being the chosen venue for these disputes.

Proceedings overview

As of May 31, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) on file for US patent 12,423,718 with the USPTO Open Data Portal. Web searches also did not surface any publicly available PTAB proceedings for this patent. This indicates that the patent is currently untested by AIA trials.

No PTAB Activity on File

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US Patent 12,423,718.
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: The absence of PTAB challenges means that all claims of US patent 12,423,718 currently stand as issued and have not been subjected to a third-party validity review before the PTAB.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US patent 12,423,718 are UNTESTED by PTAB proceedings. No claims have been canceled, sustained, or narrowed through an IPR, PGR, or CBM. This means the patent has not yet been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Since no PTAB proceedings have been filed, there is no estoppel landscape to consider under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). All potential prior-art grounds remain available for a future petitioner to raise in an AIA trial, subject to the statutory filing windows. For a defendant currently being asserted against, this means that any prior art that could be used to challenge the patent's validity (e.g., under § 102 or § 103) is still a viable basis for a PTAB petition.

Given the patent's publication date of September 23, 2025, the 9-month window for filing a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition (which allows for challenges under §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112) is still open until approximately June 23, 2026. After this date, only Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions (which are limited to challenges under §§ 102 and 103 based on patents and printed publications) would be available, typically after the 9-month PGR window closes. The ongoing litigation noted in the patent's history suggests that defendants in those cases may consider filing PTAB petitions as a defensive strategy.

Recommended next steps

Given the current lack of PTAB activity for US patent 12,423,718:

• For a potential defendant: If facing assertion of this patent, consider the strategic timing for filing an AIA trial petition. The patent is still within its Post-Grant Review (PGR) window, which closes around June 23, 2026. A PGR offers broader grounds for challenge (§§ 101, 102, 103, and 112) compared to an IPR (§§ 102 and 103 only). This narrow window presents a unique opportunity for a comprehensive challenge.
• For any interested party: The absence of PTAB activity for a patent involved in active district court litigation is a notable signal. It suggests that, as of today, no party has successfully (or even attempted to) use the PTAB system to challenge the patent's validity. This makes the patent "hardened" only in the sense that it has yet to be challenged, not that it has survived any third-party review.
• Monitor for future filings: Given the ongoing litigation, it is advisable to regularly monitor the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (E2E) system for any newly filed IPR or PGR petitions concerning US patent 12,423,718.## Proceedings overview

As of May 31, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) on file for US patent 12,423,718 with the USPTO Open Data Portal. Web searches also did not surface any publicly available PTAB proceedings for this patent. This indicates that the patent is currently untested by AIA trials, giving a defendant a clear defensive posture as no claims have been challenged or invalidated at the PTAB.

No PTAB Activity on File

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US Patent 12,423,718.
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: The absence of PTAB challenges means that all claims of US patent 12,423,718 currently stand as issued and have not been subjected to a third-party validity review before the PTAB. Any infringement theory built on these claims remains formally unchallenged through this avenue.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US patent 12,423,718 are UNTESTED by PTAB proceedings. No claims have been canceled, sustained, or narrowed through an IPR, PGR, or CBM. This means the patent has not yet been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Since no PTAB proceedings have been filed, there is no estoppel landscape to consider under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). All potential prior-art grounds remain available for a future petitioner to raise in an AIA trial, subject to the statutory filing windows. For a defendant currently being asserted against, this means that any prior art that could be used to challenge the patent's validity (e.g., under § 102 or § 103) is still a viable basis for a PTAB petition.

Given the patent's publication date of September 23, 2025, the 9-month window for filing a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition (which allows for challenges under §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112) is still open until approximately June 23, 2026. After this date, only Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions (which are limited to challenges under §§ 102 and 103 based on patents and printed publications) would be available, typically after the 9-month PGR window closes. The ongoing litigation noted in the patent's history suggests that defendants in those cases may consider filing PTAB petitions as a defensive strategy.

Recommended next steps

Given the current lack of PTAB activity for US patent 12,423,718:

• For a potential defendant: If facing assertion of this patent, consider the strategic timing for filing an AIA trial petition. The patent is still within its Post-Grant Review (PGR) window, which closes around June 23, 2026. A PGR offers broader grounds for challenge (§§ 101, 102, 103, and 112) compared to an IPR (§§ 102 and 103 only). This narrow window presents a unique opportunity for a comprehensive challenge.
• Monitor for future filings: Given the ongoing litigation, it is advisable to regularly monitor the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (E2E) system for any newly filed IPR or PGR petitions concerning US patent 12,423,718. The absence of PTAB activity for a patent involved in active district court litigation is a notable signal, suggesting that no party has yet formally challenged its validity before the Board.

Inventors

• Michael Garel: Alpha Modus Corp (employer at time of filing, as Alpha Modus Corp was the applicant)
• Jim Wang: Alpha Modus Corp (employer at time of filing, as Alpha Modus Corp was the applicant)

There are no unusual patterns indicating inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The entity named as the Original Assignee on the issued patent (and as the applicant) is Alpha Modus Corp.

It is unclear if Alpha Modus Corp currently ships a product directly embodying the claims. However, public records indicate that Alpha Modus, Corp. is actively involved in patent enforcement. SEC filings from Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. and litigation records confirm that Alpha Modus, Corp. asserts patents, including US 12,423,718, against other companies whose in-store systems are alleged to infringe its portfolio. Its current status is operating.

Assignment timeline

The following is a chronological list of recorded assignments for US patent 12,423,718 (which was US patent application Ser. No. 18/905,975 at the time of these transfers), obtained from the USPTO Assignment Center [cite: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/].

• 2024-10-21 (executed) / recorded 2024-10-22 — Reel 062638/0925

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: GAREL, MICHAEL; WANG, JIM
  • Assignee: EYEQ, INC.
  • Correspondent: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL LLC, 444 N. MICHIGAN AVENUE, SUITE 3100, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, 60611, UNITED STATES. This correspondent recurs for all assignments in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of patent application rights from inventors to an intermediary entity.

• 2024-10-21 (executed) / recorded 2024-10-22 — Reel 062638/0928

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: EYEQ, INC.
  • Assignee: ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
  • Correspondent: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL LLC, 444 N. MICHIGAN AVENUE, SUITE 3100, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, 60611, UNITED STATES. This correspondent recurs for all assignments in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of patent application rights from the intermediary entity to Alpha Modus, Corp.

• 2025-02-05 (executed) / recorded 2025-02-10 — Reel 063162/0122

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
  • Assignee: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLC
  • Correspondent: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL LLC, 444 N. MICHIGAN AVENUE, SUITE 3100, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, 60611, UNITED STATES. This correspondent recurs for all assignments in this chain.
  • Context: Securitization of the patent application by Alpha Modus, Corp.

• 2025-07-29 (executed) / recorded 2025-07-31 — Reel 063724/0971

  • Conveyance: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY
  • Assignor: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLC
  • Assignee: ALPHA MODUS, CORP.
  • Correspondent: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL LLC, 444 N. MICHIGAN AVENUE, SUITE 3100, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, 60611, UNITED STATES. This correspondent recurs for all assignments in this chain.
  • Context: Release of the security interest, restoring full rights to Alpha Modus, Corp.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12423718
    2024 : Application filed by Alpha Modus Corp
         : Inventors assign to EyeQ Inc
         : EyeQ Inc assigns to Alpha Modus Corp
    2025 : Alpha Modus grants security interest to Streeterville Capital
         : Streeterville Capital releases security interest to Alpha Modus
         : Patent issued
         : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The application was transferred from the inventors to EYEQ, INC., and immediately to ALPHA MODUS, CORP. on the same day (executed 2024-10-21, recorded 2024-10-22, Reel 062638/0925 and 062638/0928). While Alpha Modus, Corp. itself appears to be the ultimate operating entity for patent assertion, the initial two-step transfer and the subsequent security interest with Streeterville Capital LLC, which acts as the consistent correspondent, suggest a structured approach to patent holding and monetization.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Alpha Modus, Corp. is explicitly identified in the litigation summary as actively asserting a patent portfolio, including US 12,423,718, against major retailers like Lowe's. This directly aligns with the definition of a patent asserter. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12423718/en]
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. STREETERVILLE CAPITAL LLC (444 N. MICHIGAN AVENUE, SUITE 3100, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, 60611, UNITED STATES) is listed as the correspondent for all four recorded assignments related to this patent application (Reel 062638/0925, 062638/0928, 063162/0122, 063724/0971). Its consistent involvement across multiple transfers within the chain is a strong indicator of an NPE pattern.
4. Cascading transfers — Present. The transfers from the inventors to EYEQ, INC., and then from EYEQ, INC. to ALPHA MODUS, CORP. occurred on the same execution date (2024-10-21) and were recorded on the same day (2024-10-22) (Reel 062638/0925 and 062638/0928). This rapid, consecutive transfer through an intermediary entity is a strong signal of cascading transfers for structuring ownership.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The security interest granted to STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLC was released by secured party back to ALPHA MODUS, CORP. on 2025-07-29 (executed) and 2025-07-31 (recorded) (Reel 063724/0971). The patent subsequently issued on 2025-09-23, and the first infringement suit against Lowe's (2:25-cv-01145) was filed on 2025-10-14. This places the final cleanup of the ownership chain (release of security interest) approximately 2.5 months prior to the patent's issuance and assertion, indicating preparation for litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No information suggests the original assignee filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While Alpha Modus, Corp. is asserting patents against retailers, there is no explicit evidence within the provided text to confirm if this is on behalf of another operating company or solely for its own monetization.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates with Alpha Modus, Corp., an identified asserter.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is justified by multiple strong signals. Alpha Modus, Corp. is a known patent asserter, as confirmed by its active litigation campaign against major retailers. The assignment chain exhibits cascading transfers (Reel 062638/0925, 062638/0928), a consistent repeat correspondent (STREETERVILLE CAPITAL LLC) across all transactions (Reel 062638/0925, 062638/0928, 063162/0122, 063724/0971), and a pre-litigation transfer (Reel 063724/0971) to clear the patent's title shortly before issuance and assertion.

(Verification: Search US12423718B2 on USPTO Patent Assignment Search)

As a senior US patent analyst, I have analyzed the prior art cited during the prosecution of US patent 12,423,718. The following represents the most relevant references and their potential impact on the patent's claims.

The analysis is based on the claims as summarized in the previously generated sections. The core inventive concept of US patent 12,423,718 is the combination of a demographic intelligence module (determining characteristics like age/gender from sensors) with a tracking module (monitoring a person's path, e.g., via Wi-Fi/MAC address) to link demographic data with physical behavior in a retail setting for analysis and real-time engagement.

Cited Prior Art Analysis

The following patents were cited by the USPTO examiner during the prosecution of the application that led to US patent 12,423,718.

1. US Patent 8,930,241 B2 ("Shopper-aware retail store system")

• Full Citation: US 8,930,241 B2, "Shopper-aware retail store system," assigned to International Business Machines Corporation (IBM).
• Dates: Filed: July 29, 2011; Published: January 6, 2015. This predates the priority date of US '718 (July 19, 2013).
• Brief Description: The '241 patent discloses a system for identifying shoppers in a retail store and providing them with personalized content. It describes using cameras to capture images of shoppers, performing facial recognition to identify them, and tracking their location within the store. The system then accesses a shopper's profile (which can include demographic data, purchase history, and preferences) to present targeted advertisements or promotions on nearby digital displays.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference appears highly relevant and potentially anticipates the core elements of all independent claims.
  • System Claim: The '241 patent discloses a server ("central store server"), information monitoring devices ("video cameras," "location sensors"), databases ("shopper profile database"), and software modules. Crucially, its facial recognition and profile lookup functions perform the role of a "demographic intelligence module," and its location-monitoring capabilities function as a "tracking module." The system explicitly links the identified shopper (demographics) with their location (tracking).
  • Method Claim: It describes the method of gathering information via cameras and sensors, analyzing it to identify the shopper and their location, and linking that information to deliver targeted content. This maps directly to the steps of gathering and analyzing data using both demographic and tracking functionalities.
  • Computer-Readable Medium Claim: The software described to perform the method would be covered.

2. US Patent 9,514,463 B2 ("System and method for audience analysis using anonymous video analytics")

• Full Citation: US 9,514,463 B2, "System and method for audience analysis using anonymous video analytics," assigned to Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC.
• Dates: Filed: May 20, 2011; Published: December 6, 2016. This predates the priority date of US '718.
• Brief Description: The '463 patent details a system that uses video cameras to anonymously analyze an audience viewing a display (e.g., a digital sign). The system determines demographic information such as age range, gender, and viewing duration for individuals and groups without identifying them personally. It can then change the content on the display in real-time based on the detected demographics of the current audience.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is strong prior art for the "demographic intelligence module" but is weaker on the "tracking module" element.
  • System/Method Claims: The '463 patent clearly discloses a "demographic intelligence module" that analyzes video to determine age and gender. It also discloses a server, cameras, and displays. However, its primary focus is on analyzing viewers at a fixed location (in front of a display) rather than continuously tracking a person's path throughout a larger area like a retail store. An argument could be made that it does not fully disclose the "tracking module" as claimed in the '718 patent, which specifies tracking a person's movement "within a predetermined area."

3. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0310707 A1 ("Systems and Methods for Monitoring and Reporting Consumer Traffic")

• Full Citation: US 2012/0310707 A1, "Systems and Methods for Monitoring and Reporting Consumer Traffic," assigned to RetailNext, Inc.
• Dates: Filed: June 1, 2012; Published: December 6, 2012. This predates the priority date of US '718.
• Brief Description: This publication describes a comprehensive in-store analytics platform. It explicitly discloses combining data from various sensors, including video cameras for demographic analysis (gender, age) and Wi-Fi/Bluetooth sensors to track mobile devices (via MAC addresses) as proxies for shoppers. The system integrates this data to create detailed reports on traffic patterns, dwell times, and customer demographics throughout the store.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This is another highly relevant reference that appears to disclose all key elements of the claims.
  • System Claim: The '707 publication discloses a complete system with servers, databases, and multiple "information monitoring devices." It explicitly teaches a video-based "demographic intelligence module" and a Wi-Fi-based "tracking module" using MAC addresses, which is a specific embodiment described in the '718 patent itself.
  • Method Claim: It describes the method of gathering demographic data from video and location data from Wi-Fi signals and then "linking" or "fusing" this information for analysis and reporting. This directly aligns with the method claimed in '718.
  • Computer-Readable Medium Claim: The software enabling this data fusion and analysis is inherently described.

Summary of Prior Art Impact

Based on this analysis, US patent 12,423,718 faces significant validity challenges from the cited prior art, particularly from US 8,930,241 B2 (IBM) and US 2012/0310707 A1 (RetailNext). Both references appear to teach the core claimed invention: a system that combines a demographic analysis component with a separate location tracking component to analyze customer behavior in a physical space. The RetailNext publication is especially compelling as it describes the specific embodiment of using video for demographics and Wi-Fi MAC address tracking for location, just as detailed in the '718 patent.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 12,423,718 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis assesses the obviousness of US patent 12,423,718 ("Methods and systems for providing customer assistance in a retail store") under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on the prior art identified previously. The core inventive concept of US12423718, as understood from its independent claims (System, Method, and Computer-Readable Medium), involves combining a demographic intelligence module (to determine attributes like age, gender, or sentiment) with a tracking module (to monitor a person's path, e.g., via Wi-Fi/MAC address) to link demographic data with physical behavior in a retail setting for analysis and real-time engagement.

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the context of this patent would likely be an engineer or developer with expertise in retail technology, business intelligence, sensor systems, data analytics, and digital signage.

Combination 1: US 2012/0310707 A1 (RetailNext) + General Knowledge/Routine Implementation

References:

• US 2012/0310707 A1 ("Systems and Methods for Monitoring and Reporting Consumer Traffic") to RetailNext, Inc. ('707 A1)
• Common sense and routine implementation of known retail engagement techniques.

Reasoning for Obviousness:

The RetailNext '707 A1 publication is highly relevant as it explicitly discloses a comprehensive in-store analytics platform that combines key elements of US12423718's independent claims.

1. System and Method Disclosure in '707 A1:

   • Demographic Intelligence Module: '707 A1 describes using video cameras for demographic analysis, including determining gender and age. This directly teaches a demographic intelligence module.
   • Tracking Module: '707 A1 explicitly discloses using Wi-Fi and Bluetooth sensors to track mobile devices via their Media Access Control (MAC) addresses, thereby monitoring shoppers' locations and movements within the store. This directly teaches a tracking module, specifically mentioning MAC address tracking, a key feature in US12423718.
   • Linking and Analysis: The '707 A1 publication describes integrating ("fusing") this data from various sensors (video for demographics, Wi-Fi for location) to create detailed reports on traffic patterns, dwell times, and customer demographics throughout the store. This clearly anticipates the linking of demographic and tracking information and its analysis.
   • Server and Databases: An "in-store analytics platform" inherently includes a server and databases to process and store this information.

2. Motivation to Combine/Implement:
   A PHOSITA in retail technology, faced with the challenges articulated in the background of US12423718 (e.g., "delivering the right message to the right time to a customer that influences purchasing" and providing a "richer experience" than online retail), would find it obvious to take the detailed real-time behavioral and demographic data provided by the RetailNext system and apply it to enhance customer engagement and drive sales. The '707 A1 reference provides the foundation for data collection and analysis regarding customer behavior. It would be a straightforward engineering task for a PHOSITA to then utilize this comprehensive, real-time data to trigger various automated responses and provide customer assistance, such as:

   • Providing personalized information on displays: The display of tailored content based on customer demographics and behavior is a well-known goal in retail and an obvious application of the analytics provided by '707 A1.
   • Sending communications to employees: Notifying sales associates about a customer's observed behavior (e.g., dwell time at a product, demographic profile) to enable targeted assistance is a logical extension of understanding customer needs through analytics.
   • Generating coupons: Automatically printing coupons based on real-time customer interest and behavior is a common retail promotion strategy.

The problem identified by US12423718—the lack of pre-sale consumer purchasing data and the inability to personalize in-store experiences effectively—is directly addressed by the data collection and analysis capabilities of the '707 A1 system. The additional step of acting on this data in real-time through various output mechanisms (displays, employee alerts, coupon printers) would be a logical and common business motivation for a PHOSITA seeking to improve retail operations and sales.

1. Conclusion on Claims:
   This combination would render the System Claim obvious, as the '707 A1 describes all the necessary components (server, monitoring devices, databases, and the specific demographic intelligence and tracking modules) and their functionality. The Method Claim would also be obvious, as the steps of gathering and analyzing linked demographic and tracking information are explicitly taught in '707 A1, with real-time application being a natural extension for retail engagement. Consequently, the Computer-Readable Medium Claim, which covers the software performing this method, would also be obvious as a routine implementation of the obvious system and method.

Combination 2: US 8,930,241 B2 (IBM) + US 2012/0310707 A1 (RetailNext)

References:

• US 8,930,241 B2 ("Shopper-aware retail store system") to International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) ('241 B2)
• US 2012/0310707 A1 ("Systems and Methods for Monitoring and Reporting Consumer Traffic") to RetailNext, Inc. ('707 A1)

Reasoning for Obviousness:

1. Disclosure in '241 B2:
   The IBM '241 B2 patent discloses a "shopper-aware retail store system" that uses "video cameras" for facial recognition to identify shoppers (serving as a demographic intelligence function) and "location sensors" to track their movement within the store (serving as a tracking function). The system accesses a "shopper profile database" (linking demographic and behavioral data) and presents targeted advertisements or promotions on nearby digital displays.

2. Motivation to Combine:
   A PHOSITA seeking to build an even more robust and comprehensive "shopper-aware retail store system" (as broadly described in IBM '241 B2) would be motivated to incorporate the more specific and often preferred tracking and demographic sensing technologies detailed in the RetailNext '707 A1 publication.

   • While '241 B2 broadly mentions "location sensors" and "facial recognition," '707 A1 provides concrete and effective methods for these functions through Wi-Fi/Bluetooth MAC address tracking and video-based demographic analysis (which can be anonymous).
   • The motivation for combining these would be to enhance the accuracy, reliability, and possibly the privacy aspects of IBM's system by integrating the specific, proven techniques described in RetailNext. For example, if direct facial recognition (as implied in '241 B2 for identity) was deemed too challenging to implement widely, too intrusive for customer privacy, or simply less reliable for general demographic analysis across a wide range of lighting conditions, a PHOSITA would readily turn to the anonymous video demographic analysis and MAC address tracking taught by '707 A1 as an obvious alternative or complementary method to gather rich customer behavior data.
   • The objective would be to create a system that can collect more detailed, anonymous demographic and movement data (from '707 A1) to inform the personalized content delivery system (as described in '241 B2), thereby improving the overall effectiveness of in-store customer engagement.

3. Conclusion on Claims:
   This combination would render the System Claim obvious. The '241 B2 provides the overall system architecture for a shopper-aware retail environment with demographic analysis and tracking, while '707 A1 provides specific, preferred embodiments for the "demographic intelligence module" (video for age/gender) and "tracking module" (MAC address tracking), which are explicitly claimed in US12423718. The Method Claim would similarly be obvious, as the steps of gathering and analyzing information using these combined demographic and tracking techniques to inform real-time customer interactions are disclosed or made obvious by the combination. The Computer-Readable Medium Claim would also be obvious as a routine implementation of this combined system and method.

Summary of Obviousness Impact

Both combinations present strong arguments for the obviousness of US patent 12,423,718. The RetailNext '707 A1 publication, in particular, appears to disclose nearly all core elements of the independent claims, with any remaining features being a matter of routine implementation or obvious design choices for a PHOSITA in the retail technology space. The IBM '241 B2 patent further reinforces the concept of a shopper-aware system that integrates demographic and location data for personalized engagement, demonstrating that the underlying problem and solution approach were well-known prior to the '718 patent's priority date. Therefore, the claims of US12423718 would likely be found obvious over the identified prior art.