7Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Notes
There are two pending Claim 21’s listed in the latest claim set – an independent claim 21, and a dependent claim 21 (system claim) that depends on independent Claim 21 (method claim). Appropriate correction is required.
For Examination purposes, the Examiner has only considered Independent claim 21 (directed to a method).
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, 18-28 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 the provided query and the adjustable geographic boundary; 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, wherein the modified result set comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device; displaying the modified result set ; receiving a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device; determining an adjustable geographic boundary of the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area ; the modified result set comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location -aware mobile device. 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 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/ mobile device including an 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.
Independent claims 21, 28 are directed to a method and CRM, respectively, for performing the method of claim 1; the claims recite the same abstract idea(as) as Claim 1. Claims 21, 28 perform the method of claim 1 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 21, 28 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 11, 18-20, 21-27 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.
Relevant prior art
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of pending claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, 18-28. 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 claims 1/21/28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Applicants respectfully submit that the rejection should be withdrawn. Amended claim 1 does not recite a method of organizing human activity, a mental process, or a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One. Even if any such exception were identified, amended claim 1 integrates the alleged exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Further, amended claim 1 recites an ordered combination that amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception under Step 2B. These principles are consistent with Federal Circuit precedent holding that software-implemented claims may be patent eligible when directed to a specific improvement in the operation of a computer or computer-based system, and that an inventive concept may be found in an ordered combination of limitations even where individual components are known. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-39 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349-52 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 Does Not Recite an Abstract Idea
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the question is whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Applicants respectfully submit that amended claim 1 does not recite a method of organizing human activity, a mental process, or a mathematical concept.
First, claim 1 does not recite a method of organizing human activity. The Office Action characterizes claim 1 as allegedly directed to a commercial interaction, including advertising or marketing activities, business relations, or sales activities. (See Office Action, p. 2). Applicants respectfully disagree. Claim 1 does not recite advertising content, a marketing campaign, a sales transaction, a commercial agreement, a legal obligation, a payment, a purchase, or a relationship among parties. Nor does claim 1 require any merchant, advertiser, purchaser, seller, or contractual counterparty. The fact that venue locations may include restaurants or other businesses does not transform the claim into a business practice.
Claim 1 instead recites, among other limitations, "receiving, from a location-aware
mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device;" "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area;" and "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary." Those limitations concern how the location-based service determines the geographic scope of a mobile-device query. They do not organize human commercial activity.
The Office Action also states that the claimed invention pertains to generating a venue
rating or score, updating the score, and ranking venues based on contextual data and criteria, and therefore allegedly represents a business practice or business goal. (See Office Action, pp. 9-10).
That characterization does not account for the present amendments. Claim 1 does not merely recite a desired business outcome, such as providing better advertising or increasing sales. Rather, claim 1 now requires "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area" before "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary." The amended claim therefore is not directed to a method of organizing human activity.
Second, claim 1 does not recite a mental process. The Office Action characterizes claim 1 as allegedly directed to a mental process, including observation, evaluation, or judgment. (See Office Action, pp. 3-4). Applicants respectfully disagree. The amended claim requires operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
For example, claim 1 requires "receiving, from a location-aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location- aware mobile device." Claim 1 further requires "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area." Claim 1 also requires "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." Claim 1 further requires "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 responses, 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, wherein the respective score is the adjusted total score." Claim 1 also requires "generating a modified result set based upon a plurality of respective scores for the plurality of venues, wherein the modified result set comprises no more
than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device" and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations, the ordered list including, for at least one top-ranked venue location, a justification indicating that the at least one top-ranked venue location was included in the ordered list based on at least one of the personal information, the social network information, the popularity information, the temporal factors, or the sentiment."
These are not acts of observation, evaluation, or judgment that can be performed
mentally. A person cannot mentally perform the claimed step of "receiving, from a location- aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device." A person also cannot mentally perform, within the operation of a location-based service, "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area." Nor can a person mentally perform the claimed combination of "determining a social network score for the venue in the plurality of venues using a collaborative filtering function," "adjusting the total score based upon temporal factors and sentiment," "generating a modified result set" that "comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device," and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations." Claim 1 therefore does not recite a mental process.
The reasoning in McRO is instructive. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held that claims were not directed to an abstract idea where they used specific claimed rules to achieve a result in computer animation, rather than merely claiming a result that could be performed by human animators. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-16. Similarly, claim 1 does not merely claim the result of recommending venues. It requires, among other limitations, "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance
between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area," and then using that boundary in "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary." Those limitations define a specific computer-implemented technique for determining the geographic scope of a mobile-device query, not a mental evaluation or human judgment.
The use of words such as "determining," "generating," "adjusting," and "ranking" does not change this conclusion. Those words appear in claim 1 as part of specific limitations, including "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area," "generating a modified result set based upon a plurality of respective scores for the plurality of venues, wherein the modified result set comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device," and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations." The claim is not directed to a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite a method of organizing human activity, a mental
process, or a mathematical concept. Claim 1 therefore does not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
2A, Prong Two: Claim 1 Integrates Any Alleged Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application
Even if the Office Action maintains that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, Applicants
respectfully submit that claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 is not a result-oriented instruction to rank venues on a generic computer. Rather, claim 1 requires "receiving, from a location-aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device," "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the
current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area," and "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary."
The Specification explains why this processing is important in the location-based service context. Mobile-device interfaces can display limited results, and the quality of recommendations within that display is important. (See Specification, [0007]). The Specification further explains that, when a location-based service has limited display capability or needs to provide a limited number of recommendations, a high-precision ranking of the "best" venues may be desired rather than a ranking of all venues that might typically be returned in an Internet search. (See Specification, [0014], [0136]). Amended claim 1 addresses this location- based service problem by requiring "generating a modified result set based upon a plurality of respective scores for the plurality of venues, wherein the modified result set comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device" and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations, the ordered list including, for at least one top-ranked venue location, a justification indicating that the at least one top-ranked venue location was included in the ordered list based on at least one of the personal information, the social network information, the popularity information, the temporal factors, or the sentiment."
The "adjustable geographic boundary" limitation is central to the amended claim. It is not merely post-solution display activity and is not merely a field-of-use limitation. The claim requires "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area" before "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary." In this manner, the claim uses location-based service data to control the geographic scope of the search performed for the mobile-device query.
This is a practical application of the claimed operations. The location-based service does not simply gather information, score it, and display it. The claim requires "receiving, from a
location-aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device," "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query," "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary," and "generating a modified result set" that "comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device." The claim therefore applies the recited operations to improve how the location-based service handles a mobile query and presents location-dependent results in a constrained display environment.
The same result follows under Enfish and Core Wireless. In Enfish, the Federal Circuit
explained that software claims may be patent eligible where they are directed to an improvement in computer functionality, rather than merely invoking a computer as a tool. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-39. In Core Wireless, the Federal Circuit held claims patent eligible where they were directed to an improved interface for electronic devices with small screens and recited a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information. See Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362-63. Amended claim 1 is similarly directed to a particular manner of processing and presenting location-dependent results for a mobile device, including "generating a modified result set" that "comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device" and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top- ranked venue locations."
The Office Action states that the user interface is generic and that the interface
functionality is not improved. (See Office Action, pp. 10-11). Applicants respectfully submit that amended claim 1 does not rely on a generic user interface as the point of eligibility. The claim is not merely directed to displaying information. The claim recites an ordered combination in which "receiving, from a location-aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device" is followed by "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query," "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic
boundary," "determining a respective score for a plurality of venues in the result set of venue locations," "generating a modified result set" limited to "no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location- aware mobile device," and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations."
The present amendments are also consistent with the reasoning discussed in the prior
response regarding Enfish, Desjardins, and the Squires Memo. The prior response explained that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology and that the eligibility determination should consider whether the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality. (See Response dated February 20, 2026, pp. 8-9). The prior response also explained that Desjardins and the Squires Memo recognize that improvements in computational performance, learning, storage, data sets, data structures, and information flow can constitute patent-eligible technological advancements. (See Response dated February 20, 2026, pp. 6-9). Amended claim 1 recites a particular improvement to the flow of information in a location-based service. Instead of executing a mobile-device query against all venues or an arbitrary fixed radius, the location-based service performs "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area," uses that boundary in "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary," and then performs "generating a modified result set" limited to "no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device."
The claim also does not preempt all ways of recommending venues, ranking venues, or searching for venue locations. Claim 1 requires, among other limitations, "receiving, from a location-aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device," "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance
between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area," "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary," "generating a modified result set" limited to "no more than a predetermined number of top- ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device," and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations." Other systems that recommend or rank venues without this combination are not covered.
Accordingly, even if an alleged abstract idea were identified, claim 1 applies the alleged abstract idea in a particular location-based service process and integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B: Claim 1 Recites Significantly More Than Any Alleged Judicial Exception
Even if the Office Action maintains that claim 1 recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that exception into a practical application, Applicants respectfully submit that claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.
The Office Action previously stated that the additional elements were generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality. (See Office Action, pp. 5-6). The present amendments add considerably more than a processor, memory, and generic display. The amended claim requires "receiving, from a location-aware mobile device executing a location- based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device;" "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area;" "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary;" "determining a respective score for a plurality of venues in the result set of venue locations;" "generating a modified result set based upon a plurality of respective scores for the plurality of venues, wherein the modified result set comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device;" and "displaying the
REMARKS/ARGUMENTS
This Amendment and the following remarks are intended to fully respond to the Final Office Action dated March 06, 2026, hereinafter "Office Action." In that Office Action, claims 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 18-20 were examined and 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 18-20 claims were rejected. Specifically, Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 18-20 were 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.
Reconsideration of these rejections, as they might apply to the original and amended
claims in view of these remarks, is respectfully requested. In this Amendment, claim 1 has been amended, claims 12-17 have been canceled, and claims 21-28 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 18-28 remain present for examination.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. & 101:
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 directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Applicants respectfully disagree.
Applicants respectfully submit that the rejection should be withdrawn. Amended claim 1 does not recite a method of organizing human activity, a mental process, or a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One. Even if any such exception were identified, amended claim 1 integrates the alleged exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Further, amended claim 1 recites an ordered combination that amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception under Step 2B. These principles are consistent with Federal Circuit precedent holding that software-implemented claims may be patent eligible when directed to a specific improvement in the operation of a computer or computer-based system, and that an inventive concept may be found in an ordered combination of limitations even where individual components are known. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-39 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349-52 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 Does Not Recite an Abstract Idea
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the question is whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Applicants respectfully submit that amended claim 1 does not recite a method of organizing human activity, a mental process, or a mathematical concept.
First, claim 1 does not recite a method of organizing human activity. The Office Action characterizes claim 1 as allegedly directed to a commercial interaction, including advertising or marketing activities, business relations, or sales activities. (See Office Action, p. 2). Applicants respectfully disagree. Claim 1 does not recite advertising content, a marketing campaign, a sales transaction, a commercial agreement, a legal obligation, a payment, a purchase, or a relationship among parties. Nor does claim 1 require any merchant, advertiser, purchaser, seller, or contractual counterparty. The fact that venue locations may include restaurants or other businesses does not transform the claim into a business practice.
Claim 1 instead recites, among other limitations, "receiving, from a location-aware
mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device;" "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area;" and "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary." Those limitations concern how the location-based service determines the geographic scope of a mobile-device query. They do not organize human commercial activity.
The Office Action also states that the claimed invention pertains to generating a venue
rating or score, updating the score, and ranking venues based on contextual data and criteria, and therefore allegedly represents a business practice or business goal. (See Office Action, pp. 9-10).
That characterization does not account for the present amendments. Claim 1 does not merely recite a desired business outcome, such as providing better advertising or increasing sales. Rather, claim 1 now requires "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area" before "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary." The amended claim therefore is not directed to a method of organizing human activity.
Second, claim 1 does not recite a mental process. The Office Action characterizes claim 1 as allegedly directed to a mental process, including observation, evaluation, or judgment. (See Office Action, pp. 3-4). Applicants respectfully disagree. The amended claim requires operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
For example, claim 1 requires "receiving, from a location-aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location- aware mobile device." Claim 1 further requires "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area." Claim 1 also requires "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." Claim 1 further requires "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 responses, 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, wherein the respective score is the adjusted total score." Claim 1 also requires "generating a modified result set based upon a plurality of respective scores for the plurality of venues, wherein the modified result set comprises no more11
than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device" and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations, the ordered list including, for at least one top-ranked venue location, a justification indicating that the at least one top-ranked venue location was included in the ordered list based on at least one of the personal information, the social network information, the popularity information, the temporal factors, or the sentiment."
These are not acts of observation, evaluation, or judgment that can be performed
mentally. A person cannot mentally perform the claimed step of "receiving, from a location- aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device." A person also cannot mentally perform, within the operation of a location-based service, "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area." Nor can a person mentally perform the claimed combination of "determining a social network score for the venue in the plurality of venues using a collaborative filtering function," "adjusting the total score based upon temporal factors and sentiment," "generating a modified result set" that "comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device," and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations." Claim 1 therefore does not recite a mental process.
The reasoning in McRO is instructive. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held that claims were not directed to an abstract idea where they used specific claimed rules to achieve a result in computer animation, rather than merely claiming a result that could be performed by human animators. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-16. Similarly, claim 1 does not merely claim the result of recommending venues. It requires, among other limitations, "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance12
between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area," and then using that boundary in "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary." Those limitations define a specific computer-implemented technique for determining the geographic scope of a mobile-device query, not a mental evaluation or human judgment.
The use of words such as "determining," "generating," "adjusting," and "ranking" does not change this conclusion. Those words appear in claim 1 as part of specific limitations, including "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area," "generating a modified result set based upon a plurality of respective scores for the plurality of venues, wherein the modified result set comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device," and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations." The claim is not directed to a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite a method of organizing human activity, a mental
process, or a mathematical concept. Claim 1 therefore does not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
2A, Prong Two: Claim 1 Integrates Any Alleged Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application
Even if the Office Action maintains that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, Applicants
respectfully submit that claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 is not a result-oriented instruction to rank venues on a generic computer. Rather, claim 1 requires "receiving, from a location-aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device," "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the13
current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area," and "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary."
The Specification explains why this processing is important in the location-based service context. Mobile-device interfaces can display limited results, and the quality of recommendations within that display is important. (See Specification, [0007]). The Specification further explains that, when a location-based service has limited display capability or needs to provide a limited number of recommendations, a high-precision ranking of the "best" venues may be desired rather than a ranking of all venues that might typically be returned in an Internet search. (See Specification, [0014], [0136]). Amended claim 1 addresses this location- based service problem by requiring "generating a modified result set based upon a plurality of respective scores for the plurality of venues, wherein the modified result set comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device" and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations, the ordered list including, for at least one top-ranked venue location, a justification indicating that the at least one top-ranked venue location was included in the ordered list based on at least one of the personal information, the social network information, the popularity information, the temporal factors, or the sentiment."
The "adjustable geographic boundary" limitation is central to the amended claim. It is not merely post-solution display activity and is not merely a field-of-use limitation. The claim requires "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area" before "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary." In this manner, the claim uses location-based service data to control the geographic scope of the search performed for the mobile-device query.
This is a practical application of the claimed operations. The location-based service does not simply gather information, score it, and display it. The claim requires "receiving, from a14
location-aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device," "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query," "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary," and "generating a modified result set" that "comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device." The claim therefore applies the recited operations to improve how the location-based service handles a mobile query and presents location-dependent results in a constrained display environment.
The same result follows under Enfish and Core Wireless. In Enfish, the Federal Circuit
explained that software claims may be patent eligible where they are directed to an improvement in computer functionality, rather than merely invoking a computer as a tool. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-39. In Core Wireless, the Federal Circuit held claims patent eligible where they were directed to an improved interface for electronic devices with small screens and recited a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information. See Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362-63. Amended claim 1 is similarly directed to a particular manner of processing and presenting location-dependent results for a mobile device, including "generating a modified result set" that "comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device" and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top- ranked venue locations."
The Office Action states that the user interface is generic and that the interface
functionality is not improved. (See Office Action, pp. 10-11). Applicants respectfully submit that amended claim 1 does not rely on a generic user interface as the point of eligibility. The claim is not merely directed to displaying information. The claim recites an ordered combination in which "receiving, from a location-aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device" is followed by "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query," "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic15
boundary," "determining a respective score for a plurality of venues in the result set of venue locations," "generating a modified result set" limited to "no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location- aware mobile device," and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations."
The present amendments are also consistent with the reasoning discussed in the prior
response regarding Enfish, Desjardins, and the Squires Memo. The prior response explained that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology and that the eligibility determination should consider whether the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality. (See Response dated February 20, 2026, pp. 8-9). The prior response also explained that Desjardins and the Squires Memo recognize that improvements in computational performance, learning, storage, data sets, data structures, and information flow can constitute patent-eligible technological advancements. (See Response dated February 20, 2026, pp. 6-9). Amended claim 1 recites a particular improvement to the flow of information in a location-based service. Instead of executing a mobile-device query against all venues or an arbitrary fixed radius, the location-based service performs "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area," uses that boundary in "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary," and then performs "generating a modified result set" limited to "no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device."
The claim also does not preempt all ways of recommending venues, ranking venues, or searching for venue locations. Claim 1 requires, among other limitations, "receiving, from a location-aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device," "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance16
between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area," "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary," "generating a modified result set" limited to "no more than a predetermined number of top- ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device," and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations." Other systems that recommend or rank venues without this combination are not covered.
Accordingly, even if an alleged abstract idea were identified, claim 1 applies the alleged abstract idea in a particular location-based service process and integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B: Claim 1 Recites Significantly More Than Any Alleged Judicial Exception
Even if the Office Action maintains that claim 1 recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that exception into a practical application, Applicants respectfully submit that claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.
The Office Action previously stated that the additional elements were generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality. (See Office Action, pp. 5-6). The present amendments add considerably more than a processor, memory, and generic display. The amended claim requires "receiving, from a location-aware mobile device executing a location- based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device;" "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area;" "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary;" "determining a respective score for a plurality of venues in the result set of venue locations;" "generating a modified result set based upon a plurality of respective scores for the plurality of venues, wherein the modified result set comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device;" and "displaying the modified result set in the location-based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations, the ordered list including, for at least one top-ranked venue location, a justification indicating that the at least one top-ranked venue location was included in the ordered list based on at least one of the personal information, the social network information, the popularity information, the temporal factors, or the sentiment." These limitations, considered as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
The ordered combination is important. The "adjustable geographic boundary" is determined before "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary." The claim then recites "determining a respective score for a plurality of venues in the result set of venue locations," followed by "generating a modified result set" that "comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device." This ordered sequence is not merely the use of a generic computer to perform a conventional business practice. It is a particular location-based service implementation for constraining and presenting mobile venue-location results.
The same point is reflected in BASCOM. In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit explained that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. See BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. Here, even if individual computing components are considered generic, claim 1 recites a specific ordered arrangement: "receiving, from a location-aware mobile device executing a location-based application, a query for venue locations and a current location of the location-aware mobile device;" "determining, by a location-based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area;" "determining a result set of venue locations based on the query and the adjustable geographic boundary;" scoring venues in that result set; and "generating a modified result set" limited to "no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device." The eligibility
analysis should consider that ordered combination, not the individual computing components in isolation.
The Office Action also states that the prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 18-20, either singly or in combination. (See Office Action, pp. 5-6). In particular, the Office Action identifies Redstone as the most relevant prior art but states that Redstone lacks the combination of elements of pending independent claim 1. (See Office Action, p. 6). Applicants recognize that novelty alone does not establish eligibility. Nevertheless, the Office Action's acknowledgement that the most relevant prior art lacks the claimed combination confirms that the present record does not establish that the ordered combination of claim 1 is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The present amendments further define the claim to require "determining, by a location- based service, an adjustable geographic boundary for the query based at least in part on (i) a density of venues within a geographic area associated with the current location and (ii) an average distance between subsequent check-ins by a plurality of users within the geographic area," together with "generating a modified result set" that "comprises no more than a predetermined number of top-ranked venue locations selected for display within a limited display area of the location-aware mobile device" and "displaying the modified result set in the location- based application as an ordered list of the top-ranked venue locations." The Office Action has not established that this amended ordered combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional. For at least this additional reason, claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged judicial exception under Step 2B.
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 all claims.
When performing the 35 USC 101 analysis, the Examiner has followed the current MPEP guidance; the Examiner has also considered the recent Squires Memo/Desjardins 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.
The instant claimed invention and McRO have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in McRO the Courts concluded that the claimed invention was not directed to an abstract idea under prong one of Alice. The Court concluded the subject claims did not recite an abstract idea because the computer animation improved the prior art through the use of rules, rather than artists, to set morph weights and transitions between phonemes. Id. at 1308. Thus, the claimed invention in McRO allowed for computer performance of animation steps that previously had to be performed by human animators. Id. at 1313. Notably, the Court in McRO determined that the process required by the claims was not a process previously used by human animators. Id. at 1314. Therefore, the claims in McRO used "limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result" over "existing, manual 3-D animation techniques." Id. at 1316. Contrary to McRO, the instant claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea - see the detailed 35 USC 101 analysis above- and the claims do not recite a computer-automated process that uses rules for animators unlike those previously employed by humans or a similar type of improvement. Rather, the present claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea as discussed supra).
The instant claimed invention and the Desjardins Memo have different fact patterns and claim sets, and thus the two are not analogous; furthermore, in the Desjardins Memo, the claim was deemed patent eligible since the Spec. described the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Contrary to the Desjardins claimed invention, the pending instant claims do not provide an improvement to machine learning; they do not describe an improved machine learning model that is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,”
The instant claimed invention and Bascom have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Bascom, the Courts concluded that the claim limitation takes as an “ordered combination” under step two are an inventive concept, sufficient for patent eligibility under 35 USC 101. When considered as an ordered combination, the Federal Circuit concluded the claims provided "an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." Id. Because of the ordered combination elements, the claims in Bascom were considered to improve the functionality of the computer, and thus amounted to significantly more under step two of the Alice analysis. Contrary to Bascom, the instant claimed invention, when implemented, does not improve the functionality of the computer nor does it improve a technology/technical field. The present claims recite an abstract idea using additional elements that are generic computing components as discussed supra, or at best, improving an abstract idea - not an inventive concept. There is no technical evidence/technical support in the Applicant's Specification of technical improvements or of a technical solution to a technical problem.
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
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 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached 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).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights