Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending. Claims 2-3 are amended.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The closest prior art of record has been included in the office action mailed on 05/10/2023. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments, filed 09/10/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 13-14, that claim 1 is not abstract because it integrates any scheduling concepts in to a practical technological application. Applicant argues that the claim is rooted in computer technology and improves the users device functionality (efficient GUI, less screen space and data usage, and automation of what was previously manual).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), such as comparing schedules in order for two people to meet on a trip. Additionally, Examiner notes that the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Additionally, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, using a (single) interface for display and the collecting of location information using GPS of client devices, utilizing a backend system, adding events to a calendar is still considered generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use and does not meaningfully limit the claim. The use of these additional elements contributes nominally to the execution of the claimed method. Therefore, they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself) 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. Here, the alleged improvement to improve usability and make it easier track and summarize locations to meet up with people and to determine one or more destination locations that may be of interest to the user (See specification, Par. 0036 and 0077) are improvements to the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Applicant argues, on pages 14, that the claims are patent eligible because they are similar to Core Wireless. Applicant argues that the claim similarly recites a particular interface (a "single interface" accessible from the device's menu) that displays limited, relevant options (specific hotels or locations tied to contact data) and even integrates messaging without context-switching. This is far from a mere "organizing human activity" idea, as it uses computer-specific solutions (GPS, GUls, in-app messaging triggers) to solve a problem arising in mobile computing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Core Wireless was considered eligible because the claims provided an improved user interface specifically for “small screen devices”. The claims were "directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.". Here, the applicant’s specification in par. 0024 recites:
[0024] In the scenario 100 of Fig. 1, the service 102 may be accessed via the wide area network 108 by a user 112 of one or more client devices 110, such as a portable media player (e.g., an electronic text reader, an audio device, or a portable gaming, exercise, or navigation device); a portable communication device (e.g., a camera, a phone, a wearable or a text chatting device); a workstation; and/or a laptop form factor computer.
Although claim 1 recites a portable communication device comprising at least one of a camera, a phone, or a wearable device instead of a client device, a portable communication device is not necessarily limited to a small screen and thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the interface could be displayed on many different screen sizes. Therefore, there is no improvement to a user interface/functioning of computers or technology or technical field and the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on page 15, that The claim as a whole contains an inventive concept that significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, meeting Alice/Mayo Step 2 (Step 2B). The combination of elements here is far from conventional or routine. In fact, the Office Action indicates that no prior art was found that teaches or suggests this combination - the Office Action states that the closest prior art was in an earlier rejection and that "Claims 1-5 and 7-21 would be allowable if ... the 35 U.S.C. 101 [issue] is overcome". This suggests novelty and non-obviousness, which, while not by itself sufficient for eligibility, strongly implies that the specific configuration of steps in Claim 1 is not well-understood or routine.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Furthermore, Examiner notes that although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination… "The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. (See MPEP 2106.05). Examiner also notes that At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant argues, on page 16, that amended claims 2 and 3 clarifies the claim's inventive concept by showing that the ordered combination involves an algorithmic selection constraint that improves how the technological process filters relevant meeting candidates.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dependent claims 2 and 3 do not recite any further additional elements and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A prong two not do they provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 is directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Claims 11-15 is directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine.
Claims 16-21 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable media and therefore are an article of manufacture.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
determining, …, a location associated with a trip of a first user, wherein the first user is associated with a first user account;
determining, …, a time associated with the trip of the first user to the location;
responsive to determining the location and time associated with the trip of the first user, generating, …, a first location profile associated with the first user account based upon the location and the time, wherein the first location profile comprises one or more locations collected … associated with the first user and one or more times corresponding to the one or more locations;
determining, …, a plurality of user accounts having (i) a relationship with the first user account and (ii) a weight, indicative of an amount of communication between the first user account and each user account, that is determined to be higher than a weight threshold, wherein the determining the plurality of user accounts comprises selecting a second user account for inclusion in the plurality of user accounts based upon a determination that the second user account has a second weight, indicative of a second amount of communication between the first user account and the second user account, that is higher than the weight threshold but not selecting a third user account for inclusion in the plurality of user accounts based upon a determination that the third user account has a third weight, indicative of a third amount of communication between the first user account and the third user account, that is lower than the weight threshold;
responsive to generating the first location profile comprising the one or more locations collected …, comparing, …, a plurality of location profiles, associated with the plurality of user accounts, with the first location profile comprising the one or more locations collected …, wherein each location profile of the plurality of location profiles comprises one or more locations collected … associated with a corresponding user;
based upon the comparison of (i) the plurality of location profiles each comprising one or more locations collected … with (ii) the first location profile comprising the one or more locations collected …, determining, …, that one or more location profiles, associated with one or more user accounts of the plurality of user accounts, are associated with one or more second locations and one or more second times that match the location and the time associated with the trip of the first user, wherein the plurality of location profiles comprises the one or more location profiles; and
responsive to determining that the one or more second locations and the one or more second times associated with the one or more user accounts having a relationship with the first user account match the location and the time associated with the trip associated with the first user account:
identifying, based upon the one or more second locations associated with the one or more user accounts having a relationship with the first user account, at least one of two or more hotels or two or more destination locations;
summarizing, …, 16/118,968 locations at which the first user can arrange a meeting with the one or more user accounts, wherein … isPage 3 indicative of at least one of:
the two or more hotels, wherein each hotel of the two or more hotels …; or
the two or more destination locations, wherein each destination location of the two or more destination locations …;
providing …, with the summarized notifications, for display ... associated with the first user account, … indicative of the one or more second locations and the one or more second times matching the location and the time, wherein each hotel summarized … is selectable to make a reservation at the hotel, wherein each destination location summarized … is selectable to schedule a meeting at the destination location; and
responsive to a user interaction … with the summarized locations, …, … an inputting of a message by a user … and a transmitting of the message to … the one or more user accounts corresponding to the meeting as…, …, … display … summarizing a plurality of options including a first option to add an event corresponding to the meeting to a calendar … and a second option to recommend an alternative time or place associated with the meeting … .
The limitations of Claim 11 recite:
determining a location associated with a trip of a first user, wherein the first user is associated with a first user account;
determining a time associated with the trip of the first user to the location;
generating a first location profile associated with the first user account based upon the location and the time, wherein the first location profile comprises one or more locations collected … associated with the first user and one or more times corresponding to the one or more locations;
determining a plurality of user accounts having a relationship with the first user account and (ii) a weight, indicative of an amount of communication between the first user account and a user account, that is determined to be higher than a weight threshold, wherein the determining the plurality of user accounts comprises selecting a second user account for inclusion in the plurality of user accounts based upon a determination that the second user account has a second weight, indicative of a second amount of communication between the first user account and the second user account, that is higher than the weight threshold but not selecting a third user account for inclusion in the plurality of user accounts based upon a determination that the third user account has a third weight, indicative of a third amount of communication between the first user account and the third user account, that is lower than the weight threshold;
comparing a plurality of location profiles, associated with the plurality of user accounts, with the first location profile, wherein each location profile of the plurality of location profiles comprises one or more locations collected … associated with a corresponding user;
determining that one or more location profiles, associated with one or more user accounts of the plurality of user accounts, are associated with one or more second locations and one or more second times that match the location and the time, wherein the plurality of location profiles comprises the one or more location profiles; and
responsive to determining that the one or more second locations and the one or more second times match the location and the time associated with the trip associated with the first user account:
providing a notification for display via ... associated with the first user account, wherein the notification is indicative of the one or more second locations and the one or more second times matching the location and the time.
The limitations of Claim 16 recites:
OA11994US0045determining a location associated with a trip of a first user, wherein the first user is associated with a first user account;
determining a time associated with the trip of the first user to the location;
generating a first location profile associated with the first user account based upon the location and the time, wherein the first location profile comprises one or more locations collected … associated with the first user and one or more times corresponding to the one or more locations;
determining a plurality of user accounts having a relationship with the first user account and (ii) a weight, indicative of an amount of communication between the first user account and a user account, that is determined to be higher than a weight threshold, wherein the determining the plurality of user accounts comprises selecting a second user account for inclusion in the plurality of user accounts based upon a determination that the second user account has a second weight, indicative of a second amount of communication between the first user account and the second user account, that is higher than the weight threshold;
comparing a plurality of location profiles, associated with the plurality of user accounts, with the first location profile, wherein each location profile of the plurality of location profiles comprises one or more locations collected … associated with a corresponding user;
determining that one or more location profiles, associated with one or more user accounts of the plurality of user accounts, are associated with one or more second locations and one or more second times that match the location and the time, wherein the plurality of location profiles comprises the one or more location profiles; and
responsive to determining that the one or more second locations and the one or more second times match the location and the time associated with the trip associated with the first user account:
providing a notification for display ... associated with the first user account, wherein the notification is indicative of the one or more second locations and the one or more second times matching the location and the time.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), such as comparing schedules in order for two people to meet on a trip. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1
A computer-implemented method for summarizing a plurality of interactive user elements, corresponding to one or more hotels, one or more destination locations, and one or more messaging interfaces, on a single interface of a display screen of a portable communication device comprising at least one of a camera, a phone or a wearable device, comprising:
backend server
a first global positioning system (GPS) of a first portable communication device
corresponding GPS of a corresponding portable communication device
single interface (menu)
portable communication device
selectable input in the single interface
display screen
second portable communication device
display a messaging interface … without requiring an opening of a separate window or a separate application wherein the message is configured to cause the second portable communication device to display an interface.
wherein the modifying the display screen of the portable communication device to display the messaging interface facilitating the inputting of the message without requiring an opening of a separate window or a separate application is associated with a reduction in screen space and an improved usability of a display.
Claim 11
A computing device comprising:
a processor; and
memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations, the operations comprising
a first global positioning system (GPS) of a first portable communication device
a corresponding GPS of a portable communication device
portable communication device
Claim 16
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations, the operations comprising
a first global positioning system (GPS) of a first portable communication device
a corresponding GPS of a corresponding portable communication device
first portable communication device
display screen
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-21 further recite the same abstract ideas recited in Claim 1 and 11 and 16, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-21 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 4
Hotel reservation interface
Claim 5
Client device
Claim 8
Web-based calendar
Calendar server
Claim 9
Email message
Email server
Claim 10
Social network account
Social network server
Claim 14
Graphical user interface
Hotel reservation interface
Claim 15
Graphical user interface
client device
Claim 19
Graphical user interface
Hotel reservation interface
Claim 20
Graphical user interface
client device
Claim 21
Single interface
display a messaging interface … without requiring an opening of a separate window or a separate application.
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628