DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s communication of 5/29/25, Applicant, on 12/1/2025, amended claims 23, 32, 34, 43, 45, and 47. Claims 23-27, 31-38, and 42-48 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant filed an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) on 12/1/2025. This filing is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97.
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statements is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), copies of the respective PTOL -1449s initialed and dated by the examiner are attached to the instant office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 23-27, 31-38, and 42-48 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 23-27, 31-38, and 42-48 regarding abstract ideas are still applied in light of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
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 23-27, 31-38, and 42-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In the instant case, claims 23-27, 31-33, and 45-46 are directed towards a process or method, and claims 34-38, 42-44 and 47-48 are directed towards a machine or article of manufacture.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is directed to the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The following claim limitations are analogous to court identified abstract ideas that are representative of certain methods of organizing human activity: “determining a first geographic location of a first mobile device associated with a user at a first time,” “using the first geographic location to generate a first geographic signature, wherein the first geographic signature is a vector capturing a newly performed user action,” “determining a second geographic location of the first mobile device associated with the user at a second time,” “using the second geographic location to generate a second geographic signature,” “determining that the second geographic location matches the stored first geographic location,” “determining an elapsed time between the first time and the second time is below a threshold and in response to: (a) the determining that the second geographic locationand “the combined geographic signature is used to determine the subset of the plurality of content items.” Claim 34 recites substantially similar language. The concepts described in the limitations when taken both as a whole and individually are not meaningfully different than those found by the courts to be abstract ideas and are similarly considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
Additionally, the claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract concepts in that there is no specific use or application of the method steps other than to make conclusory determinations. The claims do not recite any particular use for these determinations that improve upon the underlying computer technology. Additionally, the claim recites additional elements of: “storing the first geographic signature in a first portion of a persistent storage,” (computer processor and memory and transmitting information over a network) causing to display, on the second mobile device, the content item,” (displaying information on a computer display). Additionally, claim 34 recites the following additional elements: “A system for selecting content, the system comprising: input/output circuitry configured to determine a first geographic location of a first mobile device associated with a user at a first time; and control circuitry configured to,” (computer processor and memory), as well as similar language to that contained in claim 23. Examiner notes that the implementation of the abstract concepts utilizing technology in this way is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, Examiner does not find that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract concepts recited by the claims.
Additionally, the elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In regard to the claims showing significantly more, the claims do not recite “significantly more” because the claim is not either 1) improving another technology, 2) improving the functioning of the computer itself, 3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, 4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, 5) Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or 6) Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, as pointed out in the USPTO 101 Guidance.
The method and system, as claimed by the applicant, is no more than a general linking of the use of the abstract idea (an idea of itself) to a particular technological environment (the use of computers to calculate and transmit data). The recitation of well-known computer functions does not meet the “significantly more” threshold. Additionally, the application of computer technology amounts to merely applying the abstract concepts via computer elements. (see Applicant’s disclosure for implementation of computer components in Paragraph Numbers [0156]-[0158]). The recited computer elements and functions that are applied to the abstract idea in the claims are “storing the first geographic signature in a first portion of a persistent storage,” (computer processor and memory and transmitting information over a network) causing to display, on the second mobile device, the content item,” (displaying information on a computer display). Additionally, claim 34 recites the following additional elements: “A system for selecting content, the system comprising: input/output circuitry configured to determine a geographic location of a first mobile device associated with a user; and control circuitry configured to,” (computer processor and memory), as well as similar language to that contained in claim 23. For additional information see MPEP 2106.05(f) “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
Claims 24-27, 31-33, 35-38, and 42-48 when analyzed both individually and as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) are rejected based upon the same rationale, wherein the claim language does not recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Specifically, claims 24-27, 31-33, 35-38, and 42-48 further narrow the abstract idea. Additionally, claims 24, 32, 33, 35, 43, and 44 recite additional elements that are equivalent to sending and receiving information over a network and storing data in a computer database. As described above in regard to similar limitations, these are not found to convey eligibility.
Regarding claims 34-38, 42-44, and 47-48 the claims are directed to an apparatus/system and computer readable media for performing the method steps as described above and are rejected in that the recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. The application of computer technology in the claims merely serves to facilitate computerized implementation of the abstract idea. (see Applicant’s disclosure for implementation of computer components in Paragraph Numbers [0156]-[0158]).
The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the claims are not necessarily rooted in computer technology without an analogous situation that does not involve computer technology.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis.
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 23-27, 31-38, and 42-48 are found to be provisionally allowable over the currently known prior art. The claims would be found to be allowable if they overcame the 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 rejections.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The following limitations of claim 23,
…
determining a first geographic location of a first mobile device associated with a user at a first time;
using the first geographic location to generate a first geographic signature, wherein the first geographic signature is a vector capturing a newly performed user action
storing the first geographic signature in a first portion of a persistent storage;
determining a second geographic location of the first mobile device associated with the user at a second time
using the second geographic location to generate a second geographic signature;
determining that the second geographic location matches the stored first geographic location
determining an elapsed time between the first time and the second time is below a threshold and in response to: (a) the determining that the second geographic location
combining the stored first geographic signature and the second geographic signature into a combined geographic signature for storage on a server, remote from the first mobile device, wherein the second geographic signature is not stored in the persistent storage after the combining to reduce an amount of memory consumed in the first portion of the persistent storage,
wherein the combined geographic signature stored on the server is used to select a content item, from a subset of a plurality of content items, for display on a second mobile device associated with the user;
and the combined geographic signature is used to determine the subset of the plurality of content items;
…
in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations are neither taught nor suggested, singularly or in combination, by the prior art of record. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings. Independent claim 34, and dependent claims 24-27, 31-33, 35-38, and 42-48 are likewise allowable.
The closest prior art of record is described as follows:
Ramer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0061336) - The abstract provides for the following: Improved capabilities are described for selecting content for presentation on a mobile communication facility, wherein the content selection is based at least in part on the relevance between the content and a transaction event associated with the mobile communication facility, and presenting the content to the mobile communication facility.
Ramer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0061363) - The abstract provides for the following: Improved search capabilities are disclosed for mobile communications devices such as cell phones, as well as improved techniques for delivering sponsored content in a mobile communication environment.
Ramer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0313853) - The abstract provides for the following: A system for targeting advertising content includes the steps of: (a) receiving respective requests for advertising content corresponding to a plurality of mobile communication facilities operated by a group of users, wherein the plurality includes first and second types of mobile communication facilities with different rendering capabilities; (b) receiving a datum corresponding to the group; (c) selecting from a first and second sponsor respective content based on a relevancy to the datum, wherein each content includes a first and second item requiring respective rendering capabilities; (d) receiving bids from the first and second sponsors; (e) attributing a priority to the content of the first sponsor based upon a determination that a yield associated with the first sponsor is greater than a yield associated with the second sponsor; and (f) transmitting the first and second items of the first sponsor to the first and second types of mobile communication facilities respectively.
Ramer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0061300) - The abstract provides for the following: Improved mobile advertisement syndication capabilities are disclosed for mobile communications facilities, such as cell phones. These and other capabilities are employed to improve delivery of mobile advertisements and their syndication, such as associating advertising content with websites, to appropriate or desirable mobile communication facilities
Brandenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0063072) - The abstract provides for the following: A method and apparatus wherein a software scheduling agent resides on a communication network and/or client device, such as location-aware wireless communication appliances, television set top boxes, or other end user client devices is disclosed. The software scheduling agent is part of a probabilistic modeling system in which the scheduler operates to perform constrained random variation with selection. Digital content is generated, organized, and stored on the communication network and/or the client devices. An electronic digital content wrapper, which holds information in the form of data and metadata related to the digital content is associated with each item of digital content. Contextual profiles for each user and each item of digital content are established by the users and the network and maintained by a service provider on the communication network. The software scheduling agent compares the contextual digital content profile for each item of digital content to the contextual user profile for each user to determine which digital content should be offered for presentation to each user. The comparison and determination of which items of digital content should be offered for presentation to which users is performed by a process of constrained random variation. After the software scheduling agent determines which items of digital content would most likely be relevant or interesting to the user, the digital content is transmitted, either in whole or in part, at predetermined times over the communication network to the appropriate client devices. The digital content is then stored, either in whole or in part, in cache memory on the client device until an appropriate time when the digital content is digitally packaged and presented to particular users over those user's client devices
Horvitz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0005419) - The abstract provides for the following: Geospatial collaborative filtering (CF) with spatial (or location) logs and location updates that facilitates recommending location and/or services information to an active user. A location tracking system tracks the user, and is employed in part to determine when the user is associated with the location, if the user pauses at the location and how long the user dwells at the location. Based in part on this data, collaborative filtering of data from others who have visited the location is applied to provide suggestions to the active user. Additionally, new information related to the location, nearby locations, and services can be presented to the user. The information can be related to businesses, weather conditions, what previous users have selected when at that location, and any amount of data desired to be accessed, for example
Ling-Yu Duan et al. “PERSONALIZATION OF MEDIA AND ITS ATTENTION SERVICE APPLICATIONS.” The abstract provides for the following: A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it. Thus, personalization systems have become an important research area. This paper gives an overview of critical technologies both in the industry and academia for personalization of media and emphasizes on the state-of-art in content analysis for media recommender systems.
SLOTHOUBER et al. (CA Patent Number CA 2319773 C) - The abstract provides for the following: A system and method is disclosed for recommending items to individual users using a combination of clustering decision trees and frequency-based term mapping. The system and method of the present invention is configured to receive data based on user action, such as television remote control activity, or computer keyboard entry, and when a new item data is made available from sources such as television program guides, movie databases, deliverers of advertising data, on-line auction web sites, and electronic mail servers, the system and method analytically breaks down the new item data, compares it to ascertained attributes of item data that a user liked in the past, and produces numeric ranking of the new item data dynamically, and without subsequent user input, or data manipulation by item data deliverers, and is tailored to each individual user. A embodiment is disclosed for learning user interests based on user actions and then applying the learned knowledge to rank, recommend, and/or filter items, such as e-mail spam, based on the level of interest to a user. The embodiment may be used for automated personalized information learning, recommendation, and/or filtering systems in applications such as television programming, web-based auctions, targeted advertising, and electronic mail filtering. The embodiment may be structured to generate item descriptions, learn items of interest, learn terms that effectively describe the items, cluster similar items in a compact data structure, and then use the structure to rank new offerings. Embodiments of the present invention include, by way of non-limiting example: allowing the assignment of rank scores to candidate items so one can be recommended over another, building decision trees incrementally using unsupervised learning to cluster examples into categories automatically, consistency with "edge" (thick client) computing whereby certain data structures and most of the processing are localized to the set-top box or local PC, the ability to learn content attributes automatically on-the-fly, and the ability to store user preferences in opaque local data structures and are not easily traceable to individual users
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 12/1/2025, pgs. 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 USC 101 analysis presented above, the claims recite an abstract concept that is encapsulated by decision making analogous to a method of organizing human activity or mathematical concepts. Examiner notes that each of the limitations that encapsulate the abstract concepts are recited in the above 35 USC 101. Additionally, the claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract concepts in that there is no specific use or application of the method steps other than to make conclusory determinations and provide for direction for either a person or machine to follow at some future time or to make calculations that are mathematical operations. The claims do not recite any particular use for these determinations and directions that improve upon the underlying computer technology (in this instance the computer software, processor, and memory). Instead, Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claim language are only used as implementation of the abstract concepts utilizing technology. The concepts described in the limitations when taken both as a whole and individually are not meaningfully different than those found by the courts to be abstract ideas and are similarly considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions or to make calculations that are mathematical operations. The steps are then encapsulated into a particular technological environment by executing these steps upon a computer processor and utilizing features such as a computer interface or sending and receiving data over a network or displaying information via a computerized graphical user interface. However, sending and receiving of information over a network and execution of algorithms on a computer are utilized only to facilitate the abstract concepts (i.e. selecting data on an interface, publishing/displaying information, etc.). As such, Examiner asserts that the implementation of the abstract concepts recited by the claims utilize computer technology in a way that is considered to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ability to store or not store information as designated algorithmically is not a novel concept and does not fundamentally improve the technology, but instead merely uses the technology as intended and expected. The claims only recite a storing or lack of storing of data as is typical for a datastore or memory. Accordingly, Examiner does not find that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract concepts recited by the claims.
Conclusion
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H. DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0166. The fax phone number is 571-483-7110. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:00 - 5:00. 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787.
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.
/M. H. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights