Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment received 04/20/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-10 and 20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection applied to claim 1 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment resolving the grammatical error previously recited in the claim.
The 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 1-10 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment, however the §101 rejection of claim 20 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 Arguments - Applicant's arguments with respect to the §101 rejection of claims 1-10 and 20 (Remarks at pgs. 7-10) have been considered and deemed persuasive at overcoming the §101 rejection of claims 1-10, but are insufficient to overcome the §101 rejection of claim 20.
In particular, although the Examiner agrees that the system of claim 1, via execution of an algorithm by one or more processors, embodies the technical improvement in computer functionality described in paragraph [0016] of the Specification (improving venue coverage for visit detection), the method of claim 20 does not reflect this improvement because the claim steps of the algorithm recited in claim 20, but for the insignificant extra-solution activities, are not computer implemented and therefore cannot be reasonably understood as providing an improvement to computer functionality. For example, the generating, identifying, generating, distributing, selecting, adding, applying, training, and analyzing each fall within the scope of the abstract idea itself and yield no discernible improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any other technology. Notably, these claims steps do not recite or require computer execution, nor do these steps require any other additional element(s), in contrast to claim 1, which is a fully automated algorithm that reflects the computer-based technical improvement for venue coverage and visit detection.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments concerning the §101 rejection of claim 20 are not persuasive.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. he eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the method of claim 20 is directed to at least one of the eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., a process), and therefore satisfies Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claim recites an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping by reciting limitations considered commercial interaction (e.g., location/visit information with commercial establishments, see at least par. 13 of Spec.) and/or personal behavior or interactions or users (e.g., user movement/ locations, see at least pars. 19-20 of Spec.), and also recites limitations falling within the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping be setting forth steps that can be implemented in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) even if aided by pen and paper (See pg. 9 of the “October 2019 Update”). The limitations reciting the abstract idea in claim 20 are identified in bold text below, whereas the “additional elements” that are not part of the abstract idea are indicated via plain text: receiving, via a network, sensor data for a mobile device, wherein the sensor data relates to one or more locations; generating a set of candidate venues based on the sensor data, wherein the set of candidate venues are associated with respective visit probabilities; identifying a supervenue in the set of candidate venues, wherein the supervenue comprises one or more subvenues; generating a tree data structure relating the supervenue and the one or more subvenues, wherein the tree data structure comprises one or more venues, oner more supervenues, and one or more subvenues, and corresponding venue probabilities (e.g., a venue tree diagram, as per paragraph [0035] of Spec.); distributing a visit probability of the supervenue among the one or more subvenues to create a set of subvenue visit probabilities, wherein distributing the visit probability comprises updating the tree data structure to reflect the set of subvenue visit probabilities; distributing a visit probability of the supervenue among the one or more subvenues to create a set of subvenue visit probabilities; selecting a subvenue from the one or more subvenues based on the set of subvenue visit probabilities; causing display of the subvenue on the mobile device by sending instructions to the mobile device via the network; receiving, via the mobile device, feedback in response to display of the subvenue; adding the feedback to a set of training data; applying a reweighting factor to the training data to decrease bias in the training data; training a predictive model to detect when a subsequent mobile device is visiting a venue, wherein training comprises using an expectation-maximization algorithm on an unlabeled set of the training data to train the predictive model; and analyzing subsequently received sensor data using the predictive model to identify a subsequent subvenue visit (Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the “training” and “analyzing” steps fall under the same “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” abstract idea grouping as the limitations noted above, however it is further noted that using an expectation-maximization algorithm to perform the training involves, at most, applying a generic computer to perform mathematical operations, i.e., the expectation-maximization algorithm, such that even if not deemed as being part of the same abstract ideas noted above, the training of the predictive model using the expectation-maximization algorithm would nevertheless fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping. When given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the background, this algorithm is performed via a series of mathematical calculations. See Example 47, pgs. 6-7 of the “July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples,” which is instructive since substantially similar rationale for the backpropagation and gradient descent algorithms is applicable to the expectation-maximization algorithm in this instance. However, “Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea” (fundamental economic practice) “does not render the claim non-abstract.” See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326-27, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claim reciting multiple abstract ideas, i.e., the manipulation of information through a series of mental steps and a mathematical calculation, was held directed to an abstract idea and thus subjected to further analysis in part two of the Alice/Mayo test).
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited in claim 20 are directed to: receiving, via a network, sensor data for a mobile device, wherein the sensor data relates to one or more locations; causing display of the subvenue on the mobile device by sending instructions to the mobile device via the network; and receiving, via the mobile device, feedback in response to display of the subvenue. These additional elements have been considered, individually and as an ordered combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The network and mobile device merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (network computing operating environment) via generic computing hardware or software/instructions, similarly to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). Although the tree data structure has been noted above as part of the abstract idea since it encompasses, e.g., a venue tree diagram (as per paragraph [0035] of Spec.), even if analyzed as an additional element, such as being stored in computer-based storage media (as per paragraph [0042] of Spec.), the tree data structure nevertheless would amount at most to merely using a generic computing element/software to store data in a tree arrangement (e.g., binary tree, nodes connected by edges in a hierarchical arrangement) to tie the invention to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment), which does not amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See also, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also, Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (holding that merely implementing a mathematical principle on a general purpose computer is a patent ineligible abstract idea); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a computer as a tool to process an application for financing a purchase).
Next, the steps for receiving, via a network, sensor data for a mobile device, wherein the sensor data relates to one or more locations; and causing display of the subvenue on the mobile device by sending instructions to the mobile device via the network; and receiving, via the mobile device, feedback in response to display of the subvenue describe insignificant extra-solution data gathering and output activities, which is not indicative of a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recited in claim 20 are directed to: receiving, via a network, sensor data for a mobile device, wherein the sensor data relates to one or more locations; causing display of the subvenue on the mobile device by sending instructions to the mobile device via the network; and receiving, via the mobile device, feedback in response to display of the subvenue. These additional elements have been considered, individually and as an ordered combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claim. The network and mobile device merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (network computing environment) via generic computing hardware or software/instructions, similarly to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. Although the tree data structure has been noted above as part of the abstract idea since it encompasses, e.g., a venue tree diagram (as per paragraph [0035] of Spec.), even if analyzed as an additional element, such as computer-based storage media (as per paragraph [0042] of Spec.), the tree data structure nevertheless would amount at most to merely using a generic computing element/software to store data in a tree arrangement (e.g., binary tree, nodes connected by edges in a hierarchical arrangement), which does not amount to significantly more, and furthermore Official Notice is taken that tree data structures are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Moreover, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the invention can be implemented with virtually any computing device under the sun, which fails to impose meaningful limitation on the claim (Specification at par. 17 - “For instance, software (e.g., applications, operational instructions, modules, etc.) may be run on a processing device such as a computer, mobile device (e.g., smartphone/phone, tablet, laptop, personal digital assistant (PDA), etc.) and/or any other electronic devices”; See also, par. 42 - “Computer storage media includes volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data”). Accordingly, these additional computing elements do not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The steps directed to receiving, via a network, sensor data for a mobile device, wherein the sensor data relates to one or more locations; causing display of the subvenue on the mobile device by sending instructions to the mobile device via the network; and receiving, via the mobile device, feedback in response to display of the subvenue are considered insignificant extra-solution data gathering and output activities accomplished via receiving/transmitting data and using a GUI of a generic computer to display information, which are activities recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Allowable over the prior art
Claims 1-10 and 20 are allowable over the prior art. The closest prior art reference of record, Podemsky et al. (US 2015/0248436), is directed to computer-implemented techniques for assessing a presence likelihood of a subject at one or more venues. Podemsky et al. and the other prior art of record collectively teach several features of independent claims 1/20, including computer-implemented features for receiving, via a network, sensor data for a mobile device, wherein the sensor data relates to one or more locations (Podemsky at pars. 7-8, 37, 39, 43, 49, and Fig. 3A), generating a set of candidate venues based on the sensor data, wherein the set of candidate venues are associated with respective visit probabilities (Podemsky at pars. 2, 5, 8, 38-39, 59, 61, 65, 70, 77, 80, 83, and Figs. 11B-D), identifying a supervenue in the set of candidate venues (Podemsky at pars. 9, 71, and 81), and selecting a subvenue from the one or more subvenues based on the set of subvenue visit probabilities (Podemsky at pars. 7-8, 39, 55-56, 83 and 85). However, Podemsky et al. and the other prior art of record do not teach or render obvious the combination of limitations directed to receiving, via a network, sensor data for a mobile device, wherein the sensor data relates to one or more locations; generating a set of candidate venues based on the sensor data, wherein the set of candidate venues are associated with respective visit probabilities; identifying a supervenue in the set of candidate venues, wherein the supervenue comprises one or more subvenues; generating a tree data structure relating the supervenue and the one or more subvenues, wherein the tree data structure comprises one or more venues, oner more supervenues, and one or more subvenues, and corresponding venue probabilities; distributing a visit probability of the supervenue among the one or more subvenues to create a set of subvenue visit probabilities, wherein distributing the visit probability comprises updating the tree data structure to reflect the set of subvenue visit probabilities; distributing a visit probability of the supervenue among the one or more subvenues to create a set of subvenue visit probabilities; selecting a subvenue from the one or more subvenues based on the set of subvenue visit probabilities; causing display of the subvenue on the mobile device by sending instructions to the mobile device via the network; receiving, via the mobile device, feedback in response to display of the subvenue; adding the feedback to a set of training data; applying a reweighing factor to the training data to decrease bias in the training data; and training a predictive model to detect when a subsequent mobile device is visiting a venue, wherein training comprises using an expectation-maximization algorithm on an unlabeled set of the training data to train the predictive model; and analyzing subsequently received sensor data using the predictive model to identify a subsequent subvenue visit, as recited and arranged in independent claim 20 and as similarly encompassed by independent claim 1, thus rendering independent claims 1/20 and dependent claims 2-10 as allowable over the prior art. Although claims 1-10 are allowed, claim 20 is not allowed because it remains rejected under §101 as discussed above. The Examiner suggests canceling claim 20 as well as non-elected claims 11-19 (withdrawn) in a timely-filed reply in order to place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Inferring Venue Visits from GPS Trajectories. Gu, Qihang; Mathioudakis, Michael; Sacharidis, Dimitris; Wang, Gang. GIS: Proceedings of the ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems 2017-Association for Computing Machinery. (Nov 7, 2017): discloses the use of smartphone location data and user check-ins to calculate probabilities of user venue visits.
Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. (US 2017/0318418): discloses techniques for establishing and using associations between location profiled and beacon profiles.
Sheble (US 2016/0077507): discloses probability tree for simulating probabilities associated with outcomes in view of input/events associated with different scenarios.
Park et al. (US Patent No. 9,602,969): discloses features for automatically recognizing an area or point of interest.
Youssef et al. (US 2016/0050541): discloses fine-grained indoor location-based social network features, including inferring floorplan and/or surrounding environment information of a venue.
Lovich et al. (US 2016/0360377): discloses features for tracking locations of a user’s mobile device to detect user presence at a venue (par. 4), including determining a probability distribution of various possible locations of a mobile device (par. 38).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
05/06/2026
