Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 2/20/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, 18-20 are pending in the application.
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 1-4, 6-8, 11, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction – i.e. advertising/marketing activities or behaviors, business relations/sales activities, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. Some of the relevant claimed limitations include: determining a result set of venue locations based on a provided query; and determining a respective score for a plurality of venues in the result set of venue locations, wherein determining a respective score comprises: determining a user score for a venue in the plurality of venues, wherein the user score is based on personal information associated with the user; determining a social network score for the venue in the plurality of venues using a collaborative filtering function, wherein the collaborative filtering function is performed using social network information indicating whether the user's social network contacts have visited the venue; generating a popularity score for the venue based on a popularity information associated with the venue; generating a total score for the venue based upon the user score, social network score, and popularity score, wherein the total score represents a respective score for a particular venue; wherein the respective score is the adjusted total score; adjusting the total score based upon temporal factors and sentiment, wherein sentiment is determined based upon performing a keyword analysis of feedback data, wherein the feedback data comprises a plurality of user provided response, and wherein a sentiment value is determined for a response from the plurality of user provided responses, wherein a weight associated with the sentiment value is adjusted based upon a temporal factor associated with the response; ranking the venue based upon the respective score; generating a modified result set based upon a plurality of respective scores for the plurality of venues; displaying the modified result set. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “a mobile application be provided that provides intelligent recommendations”, “information may be used to order or rank recommendations within the interface”, “it may be useful and particularly advantageous to provide recommendations using location-based services”, “to provide higher quality recommendations to users”. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: determining a result set of venue locations based on a provided query ; determining a respective score for a plurality of venues in the result set of venue locations, wherein determining a respective score comprises: determining a user score for a venue in the plurality of venues, wherein the user score is based on personal information associated with the user ; determining a social network score for the venue in the plurality of venues using a collaborative filtering function, wherein the collaborative filtering function is performed using social network information indicating whether the user's social network contacts have visited the venue; generating a popularity score for the venue based on a popularity information associated with the venue; generating a total score for the venue based upon the user score, social network score, and popularity score; adjusting the total score based upon temporal factors and sentiment, wherein sentiment is determined based upon performing a keyword analysis of feedback data, wherein the feedback data comprises a plurality of user provided response, and wherein a sentiment value is determined for a response from the plurality of user provided responses, wherein a weight associated with the sentiment value is adjusted based upon a temporal factor associated with the response; and ranking the venue based upon the adjusted total score; generating a modified result set based upon a plurality of respective scores for the plurality of venues. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mathematical concept – i.e. mathematical calculations/relationships, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: determining a respective score for a plurality of venues in the result set of venue locations, wherein determining a respective score comprises: determining a user score for a venue in the plurality of venues, wherein the user score is based on personal information associated with the user ; determining a social network score for the venue in the plurality of venues using a collaborative filtering function, wherein the collaborative filtering function is performed using social network information indicating whether the user's social network contacts have visited the venue; generating a popularity score for the venue based on a popularity information associated with the venue; generating a total score for the venue based upon the user score, social network score, and popularity score; adjusting the total score based upon temporal factors and sentiment.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a processor/memory/location-based application, which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 11, 18-20 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims do not include any other additional limitations. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, 18-20. The most relevant prior art identified, Redstone (2012004712), teaches determining a result set of venue locations based on a provided query; determining a respective score for venues in the result set; determining a user score for a venue in the plurality of venues, wherein the score is based on user personal information ; determining a social network score for the venue in the plurality of venues; generating a venue popularity score based on venue popularity data; generating a total score for the venue based on the user score, social network score, and popularity score; and ranking the venue based on the adjusted total score. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 18-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for allegedly being directed to non-statutory subject matter. More specifically, because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Applicants respectfully maintain, for at least the reasons presented in prior responses, the claims are not directed towards abstract subject matter. Applicants further submit that, even if the claims were directed towards and abstract idea, the claims are nevertheless allowable as they recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and the claims recite a practical application. The Subject matter Eligibility Declarations Memorandum provided by John A Squires on December 4, 2025 (hereinafter the "Squires Memo"), emphasized that improvements in software constitute practical applications. On November 4, 2025, I designated the Desjardins decision as precedential to 1) ensure the case reasoning binds all examination and appeals activity, and 2) underscore that improvements in computational performance, learning, storage, data sets and structures, for example, can constitute patent-eligible technological advancements under the Alice framework. The Squires Memo acknowledges that eligibility determination can be difficult, however, emphasizes that there are many different type of improvements that satisfy patent eligibility tests. Eligibility determinations can be difficult. I've noted in several stakeholder addresses that Desjardins is the framework for the "something more" that Alice instructs us to look for in evaluating Section 101. Especially with new and emerging technologies, the "something more" may be palticularly challenging to divine so we need to evaluate, for example, how the invention is applied, how it operates and/or what it accomplished. For instance, when the claimed system changes the architecture itself-e.g., how information flows, not just what it does-that may satisfy eligibility. Squires Memo, pp. 1-2. (emphasis added). Applicants respectfully submit that the claims of the present application provide the same types of improvement to software and information flow, that the Squires Memo identifies as patentable subject matter. That is, aspects of the present application relate to generating a ranking for a venue. The ranking process includes determining a user score for the venue based upon personal information associated with a user. A social network score is generated using a collaborative filtering function based upon social network information. A popularity score is generated based upon popularity information. A total score can then be generated based upon the user score, social network score, and popularity score, which can then be adjusted based upon temporal factors and sentiment. In aspects, the sentiment is determined based upon a keyword analysis of feedback data. The feedback data comprises a plurality of user provided responses. In aspects a sentimentvalue is determined for a response from the plurality of user provided responses, and a weight associated with the sentiment value is adjusted based upon a temporal factor associated with the response. The respective score is based upon the adjusted total score. The generated recommended score is then used to rank a venue. In examples, a location- based application generates a result set comprising a plurality of locations. At least two or more of the locations in the plurality of locations are analyzed to determine respective scores as described above. The results set is modified based upon the generated respective scores determined for the two or more locations in the results set. The modified results set is then displayed by the location-based application. That is, aspects of the present application improve location based software applications by providing improved results based upon user location. For example, the specification states: It may be useful and particularly advantageous to provide recommendations using location-based services. Although locating venues based on location of a user using location-based services is known, it would be beneficial to provide higher quality recommendations to users (e.g., potential customers) using a location-based service. It is appreciated that the user benefits by having higher quality recommendations provided, and will therefore be more likely to use the location- based service. Further, because the quality of recommendations, according to one embodiment, are driven by the user interacting with the location-based service, the user will be more likely to interact with the location-based service in the future. Specification, para. [0004]. A user interface may be provided that allows a user to more quickly locate desired venues. Also, because interfaces on mobile devices can display limited results, it is appreciated that the quality of recommendations within the display is important. An interface, according to one embodiment, may include an ordered list of recommendations (e.g., responsive to a query including one or more parameters such as keywords, distance, category, etc.), and this list of recommendations may be ordered based on one or more of the information items described above.
According to one embodiment, the list may be adjusted according to personal information (e.g., information recorded regarding the current user's preferences and/or history), social network information (e.g., information recorded regarding the current user's friends), and/or popularity of the items themselves (e.g., as determined by group(s) of users and/or the entire network).
Specification, para. [0004]. The precedential Ex parte Desjardins decision emphasizes the importance of the Enfish decision in determining subject matter eligibility: Enfish ranks among the Federal Circuit's leading cases on the eligibility of technological improvements. In particular, Enfish recognized that "[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes." 822 F.3d at 1339. Moreover, because "[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can," the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determination should turn on whether "the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea." Id. at 1336. Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025, designated precedential Nov. 4, 2025) (hereinafter "Desjardins"), at p. 8. Applicants respectfully submit that aspects of the present application provide various improvements, such as, for example, improvements to location software in general, as it relates to transmitting data over a network, an an improved user interface. As such, in light of the newly provided guidance in the Squires Memo, and based upon the reasoning set for in the precedential Desjardins decision and Enfish, the claims of the present application integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. As such, Applicants respectfully submit that the claims are directed towards patentable subject matter. As such, Applicants respectfully submit that claims 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 18-20 recite statutory subject matter and request that the Examiner withdraw the rejection and allow claims 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 18-20, along with their dependent claims, at the Examiner's earliest convenience.
When performing the 35 USC 101 analysis, the Examiner has followed the current MPEP guidance; the Examiner has also considered the recent Squires Memo. The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not , alone or in combination , integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Generating a venue rating/score ,updating the score , and ranking venues, based on contextual data and criteria represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus , improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field.
Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “a mobile application be provided that provides intelligent recommendations”, “information may be used to order or rank recommendations within the interface”, “it may be useful and particularly advantageous to provide recommendations using location-based services”, “to provide higher quality recommendations to users”. The claimed user interface represents a generic computing element ; it is described in the Spec. as “an interface of a mobile device associated with a user”. The user interface functionality is not improved by implementing the claimed invention. The instant claimed invention and Enfish have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Enfish, the Courts found that no abstract idea was present, that the claims were directed to a self-referential table for a computer database, and that the claims were directed to an improvement of an existing technology. The Courts further emphasized that the specification taught specific technical benefits over conventional databases. Contrary to Enfish, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec., including the paras noted by the Applicant, that the pending claims, when implemented, improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
2/24/2026