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
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 10/08/2025.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-10 and 20 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 10/08/2025 have been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims is maintained and has been updated in response to applicant’s amendment.
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. 7-9) have been considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “the claims do not recite a mental process” (Remarks at pg. 8), the Examiner maintains that the claims recite activities that steps that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). For example, with respect to the steps of “generating a set of candidate venues based on the sensor data, wherein the set of candidate venues are associated with respective visit probabilities” and “identifying a supervenue in the set of candidate venues, wherein the supervenue comprises one or more subvenues” and “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” as recited in claim 1, the generating and identifying steps, but for the generic computer implementation by the at least one processor (as per claim 1), could be implemented mentally by human evaluation or judgment, even if aided by pen and paper. Notably, in the method of independent claim 20, the generating and identifying steps are disembodied because there is no computer, machine, or other discernible means by which these steps are performed, and moreover, there is nothing inherent in these steps that would preclude them from being practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claims have been shown to recite activities falling under the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping and applicant’s argument is therefore deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues that “the Office action fails to provide evidence to support the conclusion that the claimed combination of elements….would be well-understood, routine, and conventional,” citing the novelty and non-obviousness of the claimed invention in view of the absence of a prior art rejection (Remarks at pg. 9). However, applicant’s argument lacks merit because there is simply no requirement to show that every limitation or the combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to support a §101 rejection. The Federal Circuit’s BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons Inc. decision (Aug. 15, 2018) plainly addressed this very argument, emphasizing that:
PNG
media_image1.png
311
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
238
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Applicant’s suggestion that the entire claimed invention must be shown to be well-understood, routine and conventional to support the conclusion of §101-ineligibility is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument relying on the “novel and non-obvious” nature of the claimed invention to support the argument that the claims are eligible under §101 (Remarks at pg. 9), this argument lacks merit because novelty and/or non-obviousness are matters of concern in §102 and §103 inquiries, but are not dispositive on subject matter eligibility under §101. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). Accordingly, applicant’s argument relying on the novelty and non-obviousness of the claims is insufficient to render the claims eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments concerning the §101 rejection are not persuasive.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to due to the following informality: Claim 1 introduces the limitation of “one or more processors,” however in the subsequent limitation refers to “the at least one processor.” These two expressions are believed by the Examiner to refer to the same limitation, however they are grammatically inconsistent, which results in a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the at least one processor.” 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 1-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 and 20 are 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 claims do 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 system (claims 1-10) and method (claim 20) are directed to at least one of the eligible categories of subject matter (machine and process, respectively), and therefore satisfy 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 claims recite 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, as set forth in independent claim 1, are (Note: The abstract idea is identified in bold text, whereas the “additional elements” that are not part of the abstract idea are indicated via plain text): one or more processors; and memory coupled to at least one of the one or more processors, the memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs a method comprising: 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; 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). Claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore found to recite the same abstract idea.
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 are directed to: one or more processors; and memory coupled to at least one of the one or more processors, the memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs a method comprising: 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. The processors, memory, and computer-executable instructions merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based 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 claims are 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are directed to: one or more processors; and memory coupled to at least one of the one or more processors, the memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs a method comprising: 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. The processors, memory, and computer-executable instructions merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based 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 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). In addition, 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 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.
The dependent claims (claims 2-10) recite the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and set forth additional details of the abstract idea itself when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One. Even if describing the sensor data as geolocation or Wi-Fi information (claim 2) or making a determination of proximity of a mobile device (claim 3) were deemed as invoking additional elements, the geolocation, Wi-Fi and mobile device involvement merely serve to generally link the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, similarly to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more the abstract idea. See also, 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). The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or 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 - paragraphs 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 - paragraphs 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 - paragraphs 9, 71, and 81), and selecting a subvenue from the one or more subvenues based on the set of subvenue visit probabilities (Podemsky - paragraphs 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. These claims are not allowed, however, because they remain rejected under §101 as discussed above.
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).
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
10/16/2025