DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 27, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed August 27, 2025, the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 and 103 rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-25, 27-37 are objected to because of the following informalities: The amended limitation “wherein the determined to achieve…” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-25, 27-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 17, 28 and 31
Storing a promoted item;
determining one or more user-related parameters;
based on the one or more user-related parameters, determining one or more venues associated with the promoted item, wherein the one or more venues are further determined based upon a time dependent adjustable boundary of a geographic area in which to search for venues, wherein determined to achieve a particular venue density within the time dependent adjustable boundary;
using a scoring engine to generate a set of user preference scores and a set of popularity scores for the one or more venues, wherein the set of user preference scores is based on user ratings for previous visits to the one or more venues and the set of popularity scores is based on a visit frequency for the one or more venues;
generating a set of combined scores for the one or more venues based on the one or more user-related parameters, the set of popularity scores, and the set of user preference scores;
generating a sentiment rank for the one or more venues, wherein the sentiment rank is generated based upon a keyword analysis text-based feedback associated with the one or more venues
based on the set of combined scores, determine a set of adjusted scores based on at least a current check-in volume for the one or more venues a current time of day, and sentiment ranks associated with the one or more venues;
determining a list of recommended venues, wherein the list of recommended venues comprises at least one of the one or more venues; determining a subset of recommended venues for display based upon highest score values from the set of adjusted scores and a current location associated with the user;
providing the subset of recommended venues;
causing display of the subset of recommended venues and the promoted item, wherein causing display comprises sending a message to cause the client device to render the subset of recommended venues within a location-based application;_ and
in response to receiving a selection of the promoted item, causing to display a map and a list of nearby venues related to the promoted item.
The limitations of independent claim 1, as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors” because the claims disclose performing advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors comprising (in summary) storing information, analyzing the information(e.g. scoring and ranking), based on scores determine list of recommended venues, display recommended venues associated with a promoted item, display a map of the nearby venues related to the promoted item. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of using processors, client device, location based system, and memory. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of storing, determining, generating, causing, receiving) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processors, client device, location based system, and storing, determining, generating, causing, receiving amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 17-25, 27, 29, 30, and 32-37 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 17-25, 27, 29, 30, and 32-37 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea The claims the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 17-25, 27-37 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 17-24, 27-37 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Redstone et al. (US 2012/0047129) in view Kenneberg at al. (WO 2012/078791) in further view of Papakipos et al. (US 2013/0237254) and in further view of Sun et al. (US 2012/0179548) in further view of Laube et al. (US 2012/022782) Claim 17, 28 and 31: Redstone discloses a method for processing venue information in a location-based system, the method comprising acts of:
storing a promoted item in a location-based system;(see for example [0019] a location database 104 may store a geographic location and additional information for a plurality of places. For example, a place can be a local business, a point of interest (e.g., Union Square in San Francisco, Calif.), a college, a city, or a national park) (applicant’s specification at page 4, lines 6 and 7, discloses that a promoted item are venues, offers, specials, or other items created within the location-based service may be easily tagged as a promoted item.) determining one or more user-related parameters; (see for example [0021], discloses a check-in or a general search of nearby places, a user can search a place near the user's current location by providing text (such as a text string that contains a full or partial name) describing a place (such as a name of the place, or a category or concept associated with a place)(applicant’s specification on page 6 line 15 that user related parameters, search engine may use any parameters provided by the user and the system, also on page 11, line 30 and 31 states, “the one or more user-related parameters include a determined location of the user. Also see [0022] of Redstone)
based on the one or more user-related parameters, determining one or more venues associated with the promoted item, (see for example [0021], a user can search a place near the user's current location by providing text (such as a text string that contains a full or partial name) describing a place (such as a name of the place, or a category or concept associated with a place) and/or a geographic location to place services 110. Places service 110 may search location database 104 and provide the user a list of places near the geographic location that match the text string) using a scoring engine of the location-based system to generate a set of user preference scores and a set of popularity scores for the one or more venues, wherein the set of user preference scores is based on user ratings for previous visits to the one or more venues and the set of popularity scores is based on a visit frequency for the one or more venues; [0026], discloses The ranking score may be based on a distance between the user's current location and a geographic location of each place, and one or more values corresponding to check-in activity of one or more social contacts of the user for each place (Step 204). In one implementation, the ranking score may be an aggregation of seven component scores, where a first component score is based on distance and the six remaining component scores, [0027], discloses he component scores are weighted relative to the distance component score to reflect how much social context (as reflected in a component score) is worth relative to distance. In some implementations, social context (as reflected in the social context component scores of the activity table) is limited to no more than a threshold distance. This may be a global limit or a limit for each component score. For example, if a user requests to check in a nearby coffee shop, places service 110 can rank a coffee shop "X" that is 60 meters away from the user's current location higher than another coffee shop "Y" that is 30 meters from the user's current location because either the user, friends of the user, or a global set of users has checked in to coffee shop X far more times than coffee shop Y. For example, places services 110 can rank a coffee shop that a user's friend just checked in 10 minutes ago higher than another coffee shop that none of the user's friends has checked in during the past 3 hours. Also see [0028])
generating a set of combined scores for the one or more venues based on the one or more user-related parameters, the set of popularity scores, and the set of user preference scores; (see for example, [0026], the ranking score may be an aggregation of seven component scores, where a first component score is based on distance and the six remaining component scores)
determining a list of recommended venues, wherein the list of recommended venues comprises at least one of the one or more venues;(see for example [0021], if a user is in San Francisco's Financial District neighborhood (e.g., 100 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, Calif.) and wants to search a nearby coffee shop, a place search result may contain a random list of 10 coffee shops within walking distance) based on the set of combined scores, determine a set of adjusted scores based on at least a current check-in volume for the one or more venues a current time of day, and sentiment ranks associated with the one or more venues;([0024 and 0026], values in the check-in activity table can be based on the number of check-ins by users that corresponding to each entry in the left-most column illustrated in FIG. 2A. In some implementations, the number of users that have been tagged in connection with a check-in may also count as a separate check-in or some weighted amount. In other implementations, more recent check-ins (whether in the total number or recent column) relative to a current search are weighted more highly than older check-ins. For example, a check-in recorded yesterday may have a recency weight of 1, while a check-in recorded 7 days ago may have a recency weight of 0.5. In addition, the friends check-in field may be limited to first degree friends or extended to additional degrees of separation. Degrees of separation may also be used to weight each check-in. Accordingly, the values in each field of the table may represent a weighted sum of check-ins based on time of check-in and the degrees of separation of each associated user from the instant user. For example, some places may be temporary and associated with an event. The weight accorded to a check-in can decay based on time so that places corresponding to a non-recurring event are down-ranked in the list of places.
but does not explicitly disclose determining a subset of recommended venues for display based upon highest score values from the set of adjusted scores and a current location of a client device associated with the user; providing the subset of recommended venues; causing display of the subset of recommended venues and the promoted item, wherein causing display comprises sending a message to the client device to cause the client device torender the subset of recommended venues within a location-based application of the client device;
However Kenneberg discloses determining a subset of recommended venues for display based upon highest score values from the set of adjusted scores and a current location of a client device associated with the user; providing the subset of recommended venues; (see for example [0023], the prominence is based on a score for a venue that is the geographical location of post submission (e.g., a venue at which the posting user "checked-in" (e.g. current location) to submit the post to the messaging service). Also at [0032, 0034, 0057, 0071, 0073], discloses a sub-list of recommended venues.) and causing display of the subset of recommended venues and the promoted item, wherein causing display comprises sending a message to the client device to render the subset of recommended venues within a location-based application of the client device.. (see for example [0023], post(e.g. message) causing the recommended venues to be displayed.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, and system of Redstone to include determining a subset of recommended venues for display based upon highest score values from the set of adjusted scores; providing the subset of recommended values; and causing display of the subset of recommended venues and the promoted item, in order to properly display relevant venues to a viewer.
Redstone and Kenneberg do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more venues are further determined based upon a time-dependent adjustable boundary of a geographic area in which to search for venues; in response to receiving a selection of the promoted item from the client device, causing the client device to display a map and a list of nearby venues related to the promoted item.
However Papakipos discloses wherein the one or more venues are further determined
based upon a time-dependent adjustable boundary of a geographic area in which to search for venues;(see for example [0023] discloses The radius can be adjusted by a variety of factors, such as a user's interests, past activities (such as check-ins), contacts at a given location, and whether an advertiser has configured an advertisement for the place.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, and system of Redstone and Kenneberg to include wherein the one or more venues are further determined based upon a time-dependent adjustable boundary of a geographic area in which to search for venues, in order to properly display highly relevant venues to a viewer. Redstone, Kenneberg and Papakipos do not explicitly disclose in response to receiving a selection of the promoted item from the client device, causing the client device to display a map and a list of nearby venues related to the promoted item. However Sun discloses in response to receiving a selection of the promoted item from the client device, causing the client device to display a map and a list of nearby venues related to the promoted item. (fig 3e-1 and 3e-2, [0198-0200]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, and system of Redstone, Kenneberg and Papakipos to include in response to receiving a selection of the promoted item from the client device, causing the client device to display a map and a list of nearby venues related to the promoted item, in order to give different options to users. Redstone, Kenneberg, Papakipos and Sun do not explicitly disclose wherein the determined to achieve a particular venue density within the time-dependent adjustable boundary. However Laube discloses wherein the determined to achieve a particular venue density within the time-dependent adjustable boundary;[0016, 0017, and 0020], the search field that includes the predetermined location is enlarged iteratively until the predetermined search time or the predetermined number of POI hits have been attained or the iteratively enlarged search field has attained a predetermined threshold value for the search field size (depending on which result is obtained first). And which is set up to determine, on the basis of the cartographic data, an initial search field that includes the predetermined location and to iteratively enlarge the search field until the predetermined search time has elapsed or the number of found POIs attains the predetermined number of POI hits; and a search means, which is set up to search for POIs in the search field. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, and system of Redstone, Kenneberg and Papakipos to include wherein the determined to achieve a particular venue density within the time-dependent adjustable boundary. in order to help the user determine how many venues are located within a certain search radius. ([0005],Laube)Claim 18: Redstone, disclose the method according to claim 17, wherein the one or more user-related parameters includes a determined location of the user. [0019]Claim 19: Redstone disclose the method according to claim 17, wherein the act of displaying the list of recommended venues to display including the promoted item includes displaying the promoted item at a top of a ranked list of the list of recommended venues. [0024]Claim 20: Redstone disclose the method according to claim 17, wherein the act of displaying the list of recommended venues to display including the promoted item includes displaying the promoted item only within a particular designated category. [0019, 0021] Claim 21: Redstone disclose the method according to claim 17, wherein the act of scoring the plurality of venues based the determined one or more user-related parameters is responsive to a location of a mobile device in relation to a location of the at least one promoted item. [0019, 0026]Claim 22: Redstone disclose the method according to claim 17, wherein the promoted item includes a venue defined within the location-based system. [0019] Claim 23:Redstone disclose the method according to claim 17, wherein the act of displaying the list of recommended venues to display including the promoted item is responsive to an act of determining a location of a mobile device in relation to the respective locations of the at least a portion of the plurality of venues.[0019] Claim 24: Redstone disclose the method according to claim 23, further comprising an act of determining a ranking of one of the at least a portion of the plurality of venues based on a distance of the mobile device to the one of the at least a portion of the plurality of venues. [0019, 0022, 0026] Claim 27: Redstone disclose the method according to claim 17, wherein the promoted item is at least one of a group comprising: a venue; an advertisement; a special; an offer; a message; and a location-based service item. [0021 and 0022] Claim 29: Redstone disclose the method according to claim 28, wherein the act of determining activity of a user further comprises an act of determining a location of the user, and responsive to the determined location of the user, performing the act of displaying the promoted item to the user. [0016, 0021,00022] Claim 30: Redstone disclose the method according to claim 29, further comprising an act of associating, with the item to be promoted, a geographic location, and wherein the act of displaying the promoted item to the user is responsive to an act of determining if the user is located at or near the geographic location. [0019]Claim 32: Redstone disclose the system of claim 31, the method further comprising: receiving a search request for one or more recommendations; evaluating the search request to identity location parameters; and using the location parameters to determine the user location. [0026]
Claim 33: Redstone disclose the system of claim 31, the method further comprising: evaluating a location-based system storing the item to identify an indicator indicating the item is a promoted item. [0019] Claim 34: Redstone disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising using the scoring engine of the location-based system to determine a set of social network scores for the one or more venues; and the set of combined scores is further based on the set of social network scores. [0026 and 0027]
Claim 35: Redstone disclose the method of claim 17, wherein determining the list of recommended venues to display comprises ranking the one or more venues using a ranking component of the location-based system.[0021 and 0026] Claim 36: Redstone disclose the method of claim 35, wherein ranking the one or more venues comprises evaluating at least one of the set of combined scores and quality metrics for one or more items offered by the one or more venues. [0026]
Claim 37: Redstone discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the set of user preference scores are generated by applying to the one or more venues at least one of a collaborative filtering function, a user-user function, and k-nearest neighbor function. [0023]
Claim 25 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Redstone et al. (US 2012/0047129) in view Kenneberg at al. (WO 2012/078791) in further view of Papakipos et al. (US 2013/0237254) and in further view of Sun et al. (US 2012/0179548) and in further view of Laube et al. (US 2012/022782) and in further view of Kendall (US 2012/0197724)
Claim 25: Redstone disclose the method according to claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising an act of accepting at least one bid on a placement of the promoted item from a venue operator associated with a venue of the promoted item. However Kendall discloses further comprising an act of accepting at least one bid on a placement of the promoted item from a venue operator associated with a venue of the promoted item. [0029] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, and system of Redstone, Kenneberg, Papakipos and Sun to include in comprising an act of accepting at least one bid on a placement of the promoted item from a venue operator associated with a venue of the promoted item., in order to help earn revenue for the advertiser.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in regards to the 101 rejection by stating, “When considered as a whole, the claims do not relate to merely relate to advertising, marketing, or sales activity. Rather, as described above, the claims relate to a location-based service for displaying relevant information to a user based upon the user’s current location, area features (i.e., area density), and venue features. “Also cites [0087] of the applicant’s specification, further goes on to argue by stating, “That is, although the claims are related to a location-based service, the claimed technology provides an improvement to another area of technology, namely, ranking systems. As such, even if the claims were directed towards abstract subject matter, which they are not, the claims are nevertheless allowable because they amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and, furthermore, are embodied in a practical application. As such, Applicants respectfully submit that claims 17-37 recite statutory subject matter and request that the Examiner withdraw the rejection and allow claims 17-37, at the Examiner’s earliest convenience.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees ranking systems is considered business logic and/or an abstract mathematical concept. Furthermore, the cited paragraph [0087], merely describes the use of ranking in a conclusory matter without details that teach or suggest an improvement to ranking systems, [0087] does not disclose how the ranking system itself is improved upon. [0087] merely confirms that the ranking is based on business rules(time of day, user history, conversion thresholds) As stated this is considered business logic, not a technical improvement. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) The applicant’s claims do not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, other technology or technical field. The applicant’s claims collect, analyze and displays data. Electric Power Group was considered an abstract idea because • a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Per MPEP 2106.05 (a) However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
As stated in the previous office action, the applicant’s claims do not appear to have any limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application would show:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo. The applicant’s claims do not appear to fit into any of the above criteria. Thus the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim(s) 17-25 and 27-37 have been considered but are moot due to the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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 at (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 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights