Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 03/27/2026.
Claims 1,16 have been amended.
Claims 2,5-15, 17 and 20-30 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 16, 18-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 03/27/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1,3-4, 16, 18-19 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that “ the alleged abstract idea as identified by the Examiner is unclear. According to MPEP 2106.04(a), the Office should identify which limitations allegedly are directed towards or recite an abstract idea and why they do so. Applicant submits that the entirety of claim 1 cannot be an abstract idea and thus no abstract idea has been identified. Even if, arguendo, all of the limitations of claim 1 could be found to be directed towards an abstract idea, it is unclear as to what this abstract idea is. Moreover, the Office alleges the entirety of claim 1 is directed towards commercial interactions. MPEP 2106.04(A)(II)(B) states ""Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. Applicant respectfully submits that the limitations of claim 1 do not recite contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations. Instead, claim 1 is directed towards dynamically controlling a display of a remote device through a specific technical implementation involving multiple integrated computational steps (page 2/11)."
Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.04 (a) requires and explains that examiners determine if a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identified the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites the abstract idea, and (2) evaluating whether the identified specific limitations(s) fall within at least one of the three groupings of abstract ideas : Mathematical concepts MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I); Certain methods of organizing human activity MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and Mental processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The Office Action clearly stated that claim 1 for instance recite the following abstract idea of “receiving an identifier and a location; identifying using the identifier, a user; generating a geo-perimeter based on the location; generating, based on a device parameter first command to cause the display of a first message; and transmitting to the device the first command causing the display to display the first message; detecting a change in the location; revising the geo-perimeter based on the revised geo-perimeter on at least a speed in the change of location, generating, based on the revised geo-perimeter and a history of previously transmitted messages, a second command causing the display of the remote device to display a second message; and transmitting the second command to display the second message”. The limitations as detailed above are directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
That is, the entirety of claim 1 limitations are directed to an abstract idea as been identified above.
Additionally, Based on MPEP 2106, a 35 USC 101 analysis absolutely requires the examiner to consider the applicant specification when determining the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. as thus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 limitations in light of Applicant’s specification claims are directed to dynamically changing promotions displayed on a mobile device based on a likelihood that the promotion would change user behavior.
Accordingly, the claims as drafted, falls within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors as they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
As thus, the PTO’s preliminary guidelines, which have been followed by Examiner, are completely in line with MPEP 2106.04(a), and provide substantive criteria to both examiners and applicants in defining an abstract idea within a claim and determining overall subject matter eligibility. As such, it is Examiner's position that the office's action is supported by fact and analysis and has provided sufficient rationale and explanation. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1,3-4, 16,18-19 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “the limitations of claim 1 do not recite contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations. Instead, claim 1 is directed towards dynamically controlling a display of a remote device through a specific technical implementation involving multiple integrated computational steps. Specifically, claim 1 recites: (1) receiving from a remote device a device identifier and location data; (2) identifying a user based on the device identifier; (3) generating a geo-perimeter through computational analysis of the received location data; (4) generating a first command based on device parameters to cause display of a first message; (5) transmitting the first command to the remote device; (6) detecting a change in the location of the remote device through continuous monitoring; (7) revising the geo-perimeter based on at least a calculated speed of the location change; (8) generating a second command based on both the revised geo-perimeter and a history of previously transmitted messages; and (9) transmitting the second command to cause display of a second message. These limitations recite a specific technological process for managing dynamic content delivery on mobile devices by integrating real-time location tracking, speed-based geo- perimeter calculations, and historical message transmission analysis to control what information is displayed on a device with limited display resources (page 3/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. As shown above in the proceeding section, claim 1 limitations as drafted, falls within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors as they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The use of “ server, display and remote device”, fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method ( managing dynamic content delivery on mobile devices by integrating real-time location tracking, speed-based geo- perimeter calculations, and historical message transmission analysis to control what information is displayed on a device with limited display resources) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “ server, display and remote device”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,3-4, 16,18-19 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ Like the claims in Core Wireless, claim 1 is directed to a particular manner of controlling and presenting information on mobile devices with limited display resources. Just as the claims in Core Wireless were found patent eligible because they were directed to a specific implementation of summarizing and presenting information on small screens rather than the abstract concept of summarizing information itself, claim 1 here recites a specific technical implementation for dynamically controlling message delivery based on the integration of revised geo-perimeter calculations and historical message transmission data. Claim 1 provides an improved user interface for mobile devices by modifying content delivery to the technical constraints and capabilities of mobile device displays, similar to how the claims in Core Wireless provided an improved user interface for small screen devices. The combination of geo-perimeter revision based on device speed and message generation based on transmission history represents a specific technological solution to the technical problem of efficiently managing limited mobile device display resources while delivering relevant content. For at least the above reasons, claim 1 is not directed towards any abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One and is patent eligible (page 4/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. In the Core Wireless Decision, the "additional elements" of the user interface and its functions was an improved user interface, invented by the inventor, that performed a combination functions not found in traditional user interfaces. Thus, in the Core Wireless Decision case, the improvement to the computer technology was rooted in the "additional elements" of the claim, wherein the additional elements were implemented using software. In contrast, the purported improvements in a computer technology by practicing the claims of the instant invention are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself, as stated above and in the rejection below, which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components executing software which is an improvement to an abstract idea and, as such, an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see the SAP V. Investpic decision and the Recentive Analytics decision).
In contrast, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method ( dynamically controlling message delivery based on the integration of revised geo-perimeter calculations and historical message transmission data, modifying content delivery to the technical constraints and capabilities of mobile device displays and/ or the combination of geo-perimeter revision based on device speed and message generation based on transmission history of efficiently managing limited mobile device display resources while delivering relevant content) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,3-4, 16,18-19 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained. Furthermore, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., [ a specific technological process for improving how mobile devices with limited display capabilities present information to users ]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
Step 2A Prong Two
MPEP 2106.05(f)
Applicant argues that “ MPEP 2106.05(f) states "For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection." Here, the Office merely states all of claim 1 falls under 2106.05(f) without providing further rationale or support for these assertions, and further fails to identify any alleged abstract idea. For instance, Applicant submits it is unclear as to how claim 1 can amount to merely "applying" an abstract idea when no abstract idea has been identified. As no abstract idea has been identified, claim 1 cannot fall under MPEP 2106.05(f) (page 4/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. As shown above in the proceeding section, claim 1 limitations as drafted, falls within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors as they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The use of “ server, display and remote device”, fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As thus, the only additional elements in the instant case are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components, which are merely used as tools to apply the abstract idea. As such, the office actions "apply it" characterization is entirely consistent with the December 5, 2025 guidance update to MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,3-4, 16,18-19 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
MPEP 2106.05(h)
Applicant argues that “claim 1 recites a specific technical solution to the problem of efficiently managing limited mobile device display resources while delivering relevant content. The claim requires generating a geo-perimeter based on received location data, detecting changes in device location through continuous monitoring, revising the geo-perimeter based on calculated speed of location change, and generating subsequent display commands based on both the revised geo- perimeter and a history of previously transmitted messages. This is not merely performing a business practice in a generic computer environment, but rather recites a specific technological process for improving how mobile devices with limited display capabilities present information to users. Accordingly, claim 1 does not merely link any alleged judicial exception to a particular technological environment, but rather recites specific technical improvements to mobile device display systems that integrate any alleged exception into a practical application (page 7/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. As stated above, the recitation of “ generating a geo-perimeter based on received location data, detecting changes in device location through continuous monitoring, revising the geo-perimeter based on calculated speed of location change, and generating subsequent display commands based on both the revised geo- perimeter and a history of previously transmitted messages”, such limitations as detailed above are directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As thus, claim 1 limitations as drafted, falls within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors as they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The use of “ server, display and remote device”, fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As thus, the only additional elements in the instant case are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components, which are merely used as tools to apply the abstract idea. As such, performing a business practice in a generic computer environment.
Furthermore, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., [ a specific technological process for improving how mobile devices with limited display capabilities present information to users ]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,3-4, 16,18-19 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
MPEP 2106.05(A)
Applicant argues that “claim 1 improves remote control technology of display devices by providing a specific technical solution to the problem of managing limited display resources on mobile devices. Claim 1 addresses the technical challenge of determining what content should be displayed on a mobile device screen at any given moment when the device's location, speed, and context are constantly changing. Specifically, claim 1 recites technical improvements in how mobile device displays are controlled remotely by a server system. The claim requires the server to continuously monitor location changes, calculate the speed of those changes, dynamically revise geo-perimeters based on the calculated speed, and generate display commands based on the integration of the revised geo-perimeter with a history of previously transmitted messages. This represents an improvement to the technology of remote display control itself, not merely the use of display technology to achieve a commercial goal (page 7/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. the recitation of “ determining what content should be displayed on a mobile device screen at any given moment when the device's location, speed, and context are constantly changing and continuously monitor location changes, calculate the speed of those changes, dynamically revise geo-perimeters based on the calculated speed, and generate display commands based on the integration of the revised geo-perimeter with a history of previously transmitted messages” are directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As thus, claim 1 limitations as drafted, falls within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors as they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The use of “ server, display and remote device”, fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As thus, the only additional elements in the instant case are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components, which are merely used as tools to apply the abstract idea. As such, performing a business practice in a generic computer environment. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,3-4, 16,18-19 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “Claim 1 is analogous to the patent-eligible claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where the court found claims directed to solving a technical problem unique to the Internet, retaining website visitors who click on third-party advertisements, to be patent eligible. Like the claims in DDR Holdings, claim 1 here addresses a technical problem unique to mobile computing: how to efficiently control what content is displayed on a mobile device with limited display resources when the device's location and speed are constantly changing. The claim recites a specific technical solution involving the integration of geo-perimeter calculations, speed-based revisions, and message history analysis to improve the functioning of mobile device display systems (page 7/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claims bear no similarity to the DDR Holdings decision, because the instant claim merely display data in the manner in which it is received, whereas the claims in DDR Holding describe how the user interface manipulates the data in such a way that rather than directed the user to page requested by the link as would normally occur in a networking environment, the invention changes the normal functioning of such networking environment and instead of sending the claim to a landing page of the link, the invention displays the landing page as part of the currently accessed domain. The instant invention does nothing that could even be remotely similar to the claims of DDR. there is no arrangement of devices which could be considered "additional elements" and no new networking protocol which could be considered an "additional element". The only additional elements in the instant case are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components which are merely used as tools to apply the abstract idea. As such, the office actions "apply it" characterization is entirely consistent with the December 5, 2025 guidance update to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (how to efficiently control what content is displayed on a mobile device with limited display resources when the device's location and speed are constantly changing) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
Additionally, the integration of geo-perimeter calculations, speed-based revisions, and message history analysis does not improve the functioning of mobile device display systems, because the use of “ mobile device display systems”, fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “Like the claims in Enfish, claim 1 here is directed to an improvement in computer functionality, specifically the functionality of mobile device display systems. The claim recites specific technical mechanisms, geo-perimeter generation and revision, speed-based calculations, and history-based message selection, that improve how mobile device displays present information to users. This is not a case of merely using a computer as a tool in a particular technological environment, but rather improving the computer technology itself. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits claim 1 integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and is therefore eligible at least under Step 2A Prong Two (page 7/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. In the Enfish decision the "additional element" of the self-referential database was considered an improved database, invented by the inventor, that operated in a manner different from traditional databases. Thus, the improvement to the computer technology was rooted in the "additional elements" of the claim, wherein the additional elements were implemented using software. In contrast, the purported improvements in a computer technology by practicing the claims of the instant invention are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components executing software which is an improvement to an abstract idea and, as such, an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see the SAP V. Investpic decision and the Recentive Analytics decision). Thus, the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,3-4, 16,18-19 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Step 2B:
Applicant argues that “like the claims in BASCOM, which were found patent eligible because they recited a specific implementation of content filtering rather than the abstract idea of filtering content itself, claim 1 recites a specific implementation of dynamic message delivery involving the ordered combination of geo-perimeter revision based on calculated device speed and message generation based on both the revised geo-perimeter and a history of previously transmitted messages. This ordered combination provides technical benefits including efficient use of limited mobile device display resources, reduced unnecessary data transmission, and improved relevance of displayed content based on the device's rate of movement and a history of previously displayed messages. The claim does not preempt all methods of delivering content to mobile devices, but rather is limited to the specific technical implementation requiring the particular ordered combination of geo-perimeter revision based on speed calculations integrated with message transmission history analysis. Accordingly, like the claims in BASCOM, claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and amounts to an inventive concept under Step 2B. The same arguments apply to claim 16. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the present rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. §101 (page 8/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. the BASCOM decisions (specific arrangement of devices and the significant steps of the abstract idea each device performs) provided the technological solution to a technological problem. In the instant case, there is no arrangement of devices which could be considered "additional elements" as in Bascom case. The only additional elements in the instant case are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components and a standard encoding scheme which are merely used as tools to apply the abstract idea. As such, the office actions "apply it" characterization is entirely consistent with the December 5, 2025 guidance update to MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,3-4, 16,18-19 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1,3-4, 16, 18-19 rejection under 35 USC § 103:
Applicant argues that “ Busch does not disclose or suggest generating a second message based on a revised-geo perimeter and history of messages. Instead, Busch describes simply replacing content displayed on a mobile device to be more relevant based on updated location information, without any consideration for a history of previously transmitted messages. (Busch [0359]). Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, claim 1 is patentable over Coulson, Ramer, and Busch, alone or in combination. Claim 16 has been amended similarly to claim 1 and is patentable over Coulson, Ramer, and Busch, for at least the reasons described above. Claims 3-4 and 18-19 depend, directly or indirectly, on claims 1 and 16 and are patentable over Coulson and Ramer due at least to their dependencies on claims 1 and 16. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the present rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (page 10/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. As per Applicant’s specification “ The message selection parameters may also include the time of the day, the location of the remote device 502, and/or the history of promotional messages previously transmitted to the remote device. The history may also include the user's response to a previously transmitted message, such as ignoring/not viewing the message; viewing, but not taking any action; or taking an action with respect to the promotional message, such as buying a product/service promoted in the message, visiting a different vendor, etc. The user's reaction or non-reaction may be recorded during a specified time window after a promotional message is displayed, e.g., within a few seconds or minutes, a few hours, a few days, etc (page 16/26).
Accordingly, Busch in at least paragraph 359 discloses if the user is moving faster (For purposes of illustration and without limitation, if they are in a car, on a motorcycle, on a high speed train, etc.) then targeted content associated with businesses in a wider area (revising the geo-perimeter based on at least a speed in the change of location of the remote device) , are sent to the user or retrieved from the memory of the mobile device. This allows the mobile device to display the most relevant content to the user of the mobile device while allowing the content to be displayed a sufficient amount of time so that the user is able to see and react to the content before the content is replaced with more relevant information ( second message) based upon updated location information available to the mobile device. Busch also in at least paragraph 359 discloses Content is replaced when it is no longer convenient for the user to respond to or when it has been displayed for a given period of time without a user response ( a history of previously transmitted messages). For purposes of illustration and without limitation, when a user is driving down a road and an advertisement is displayed to a user for a particular business location, once the user passes the entrance to the complex where the business is located the advertisement may be replaced on the screen of the mobile device. When the user is walking around a shopping center and an advertisement is displayed for a time sufficient for the user to see and respond to the advertisement (e.g., after the user responds to da text message and therefore is looking at their phone an advertisement notification is displayed for a nearby store for a period of 30 seconds and then the advertisement subsides or is replaced with another advertisement);
Busch also in at least paragraph 371 discloses (When presented with a coupon, the client either accepts the coupon by clicking on a button or other methods (e.g., voice, optical gesture recognizer, touch, etc.) to accept or postpone the advertisement (e.g., “Ok,” “Yes,” “Accept,” “Later,” “Ignore,” etc.), the user may simply ignore the advertisement (e.g., by not providing any input in response to the advertisement), or explicitly reject the advertisement by clicking a button or indicating through other methods); Busch also in at least paragraph 384 discloses (This method may also be used to determine if a user of a mobile device visited a business location after receiving targeted content associated with that business. Furthermore, other actions taken by the user of a mobile device may be monitored. It may be determined whether or not a user ignored the targeted content. This may be determined by analyzing the location information to see if the user of the mobile device passed by the location indicated by the targeted content. It may be determined whether or not the user of the mobile device dismissed the notification, saved the notification for display next time they pass by the location, or some other user input into the mobile device that is associated with the targeted content); therefor, the claim rejection under over the cited prior art is maintained.
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 1,3-4, 16, 18-19 are directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However claims 1,3-4, 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
“receiving an identifier and a location;
identifying using the identifier a user ;
generating a geo-perimeter based on the location;
generating, a first command to display a first message; and
transmitting the first command to display the first message;
detecting a change in the location; revising the geo-perimeter based on the revised geo-perimeter and a history of previously transmitted messages, a second command to display a second message; and
transmitting the second command to display the second message”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “remote device, display, server”, amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving from a remote device, a device identifier and a location of the remote device;
transmitting to the device the first command causing the display of the remote device to display the first message;
transmitting the second command to the remote device to cause the display of the remote device to display the second message.
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “remote device, display, server”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraph 122); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving from a remote device, a device identifier and a location of the remote device;
transmitting to the device a first command causing a first promotional message to be displayed on the remote device, the first promotional message being based on, at least in part, a plurality of message-selection parameters;
transmitting thereto a second command causing a second promotional message to be displayed on the remote device, the second promotional message being based on, at least in part, the change in the one or more of the plurality of message-selection parameters;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same analysis is applied here to independent claim 16.
The dependent claims 3-4 and 18-19 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the type of selecting set of business entities which is considered part of the abstract idea (claims 3 and 18) ; adding additional steps directed to a stored a database of the first business entity comprises an inventory of a plurality of products; and a change in the database of the first business entity comprises a change in the inventory (claims 4 and 19) and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1, 3-4, 16, 18-19 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson et al, US Pub No: 2015/0356665 A1 in view of Ramer et al, US Pub No: 2012/0239498 A1 in view of Busch, Pub No: 2020/0302480 A1.
Claims 1, 4,16 and 19:
Colson discloses:
receiving from a remote device, a location of the remote device (see at least paragraph 38 ( if the onboard computing device reports its location (or destination or route) to a web application or location service, the web application or location service may report the user's location (or destination or route) to the merchant server(s), which may engage the customer via the onboard computing device trough the interfaces described herein);
generating a geo-perimeter based on the location, and selecting a set of one or more business entities within the geo-perimeter (see at least paragraphs 35-36, 38, 58 and 62; Paragraph 36 (By categorizing this traffic as being of the closest physical proximity, merchant servers may be able to offer increased discounts or time-based incentives because these customers are already near the store's location); Paragraph 58 (a merchant M.sub.3 has subscribed to a shopping service, such as shopping service 418, and has set up a geo-fence 502. The geo-fence 502 bounds a geographical area (area on a map, proximity to a location, etc.);
transmitting thereto a first command causing a first promotional message to be displayed on the remote device, the first promotional message being based on, at least in part, a plurality of message-selection parameters (see at least paragraphs 24-25; Paragraph 25 ( the interface may display items that have recently been purchased (online or using the pre-purchase mechanism described above). In such examples, the user may be presented with an interface usable to modify the previous purchases. In some examples, one or more promotions relating to the previous purchases may be displayed (e.g., offering the user to buy additional quantities of the item at a discount, offering the user a discount on related or competing items, rebates associated with the items, etc.);
Colson does not specifically disclose, but Ramer however discloses:
receiving from a remote device, a device identifier; and identifying, using the device identifier, a user of the remote device (see at least paragraph 55 (The mobile subscriber characteristics facility 112 may continually, or periodically, update data for individual users, for example, bill amount(s), average bill total, payment history, on-time payment history, on-line usage amount, duration of on-line interactions, number of on-line interactions, family status and family information, number of children, shopping habits (e.g., views of or purchases of goods and services) click stream information, device type and device version, device characteristics, usage patterns (including those based on location, time of day, or other variables), device and/or subscriber unique identifiers);
wherein the device parameter comprising one or more of type of screen size, screen resolution , device type and operating system of the remote device (see at least the abstract ( A system for targeted delivery of advertising including the steps of: (i) receiving a navigation request from a mobile communication facility including a user selection of a first advertisement displayed on the mobile communication facility; (ii) receiving an indicator input including (a) a geographical location and (b) queries or accesses to content associated with a plurality of other mobile communication facilities within the geographical location; (iii) dynamically creating second and third advertisements configured to be displayed on the mobile communication facility based on the navigation request and/or the indicator input, and a rendering capability of the mobile communication facility); paragraph 313 (Alternatively or additionally, the information may be a user history, a user transaction, a geographic location, a user device, a time, a mobile communication facility characteristic, provided by a wireless operator, provided by a wireless service provider, provided by a telecommunications service provider. The mobile communication facility characteristic may be selected from the group consisting of display capability, display size, display resolution, processing speed, audio capability, video capability, cache size, storage capability, memory capacity, and the like);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to have combined the teaching of Ramer including dynamically creating advertisement content based on user’s geographical location, and rendering capability of the mobile communication facility with the teaching of Colson including employ dynamic promotions to incent the user to prep-purchase items and to reroute to a destination of the respective merchant with the motivation to provide advertisers with an improved advertising system capabilities adapted for use with mobile communication devices as taught by Ramer over that of Colson.
The combination of Colson/ Ramer does not specifically disclose, but Bush however discloses:
detecting a change in the location of the remote device;
revising the geo-perimeter based on at least a speed in the change of location of the remote device;
generating, based on the revised geo-perimeter and a history of previously transmitted messages, a second command causing the display of the remote device to display a second message; transmitting the second command to the remote device to cause the display of the remote device to display the second message;
See at least paragraphs 348, 359, 371, 384, paragraph 348, (FIG. 4, targeted content associated with a particular business location 200 may be displayed based upon the determination of previous courses 400 and the current likely course of travel or anticipated route 402; however, this display of targeted content is not necessary for purposes of this example. Location data points and the associated vectors (representing the relatively high velocity) may be used to determine that the user is traveling on a major road 300. Based on the determination that the user of the mobile device is traveling on the major road and analyzing historical location data associated with the user, it may be determined that the user is going to turn left at the next major road and take anticipated route 402. Based upon this determination, targeted content may be sent for one or more businesses along the anticipated route 402 to the user of the mobile device. Location data point and the associated velocity vector (at an angle) 302 allows the determination that the user is turning on to another major road. At this point, the anticipated route 402 is reevaluated to determine if it has changed. Location data points and the associated velocity vectors (representing the relatively high rate of speed) allow the system to determine the points correspond to the user traveling on a major road 304. At some point, targeted content for the business location 200 is displayed on the mobile device. The user of the mobile device may not see the content because the user is not looking at the device, the user may see the content and ignore it, the user may see the content and perform an action on the content through the user interface, the user may see the content, and not perform any action on the content through the user interface but then proceed to the location indicated by the content. Location data point and the associated velocity vector (at an angle) 306 may be used to determine that the user is turning into a shopping center. Location data points and the associated vectors (representing a slower velocity) may be used to determine that the user is driving in a parking lot 308. Location data points and the associated vectors (representing a very slow velocity) may be used to determine that the user is walking 310 to the store. Location data points 204 within the perimeter of the business location 200 may be used to determine that the user of the mobile device visited the particular business location after the targeted content was displayed on the user's mobile device; paragraph 359, if the user is moving faster (For purposes of illustration and without limitation, if they are in a car, on a motorcycle, on a high speed train, etc.) then targeted content associated with businesses in a wider area (revising the geo-perimeter based on at least a speed in the change of location of the remote device) , are sent to the user or retrieved from the memory of the mobile device. This allows the mobile device to display the most relevant content to the user of the mobile device while allowing the content to be displayed a sufficient amount of time so that the user is able to see and react to the content before the content is replaced with more relevant information (second message transmitted) based upon updated location information available to the mobile device…Content is replaced when it is no longer convenient for the user to respond to or when it has been displayed for a given period of time without a user response ( a history of previously transmitted messages). For purposes of illustration and without limitation, when a user is driving down a road and an advertisement is displayed to a user for a particular business location, once the user passes the entrance to the complex where the business is located the advertisement may be replaced on the screen of the mobile device. When the user is walking around a shopping center and an advertisement is displayed for a time sufficient for the user to see and respond to the advertisement (e.g., after the user responds to da text message and therefore is looking at their phone an advertisement notification is displayed for a nearby store for a period of 30 seconds and then the advertisement subsides or is replaced with another advertisement);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to have combined the teaching of Colson/Ramer including dynamically creating advertisement content based on user’s geographical location, with Bush system and methods for transmitting establishments information based on speed and consumer’ location with the motivation to provide consumers with continuously updated targeted advertisements as taught by Busch over that Colson/Ramer.
Claims 3 and 18:
The combination of Colson/Ramer / Busch discloses the limitations as shown above.
The combination of Colson/ Ramer does not specifically disclose, but Bush however discloses:
wherein a greater speed in the change of the location increases a size of the geo-perimeter (see at least paragraph 359, if the user is moving faster (For purposes of illustration and without limitation, if they are in a car, on a motorcycle, on a high speed train, etc.) then targeted content associated with businesses in a wider area (revising the geo-perimeter based on at least a speed in the change of location of the remote device) , are sent to the user or retrieved from the memory of the mobile device. This allows the mobile device to display the most relevant content to the user of the mobile device while allowing the content to be displayed a sufficient amount of time so that the user is able to see and react to the content before the content is replaced with more relevant information based upon updated location information available to the mobile device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to have combined the teaching of Colson/Ramer including dynamically creating advertisement content based on user’s geographical location, with Bush system and methods for transmitting establishments information based on speed and consumer’ location with the motivation to provide consumers with continuously updated targeted advertisements as taught by Busch over that of Colson/Ramer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Levkovitz, US Pub No: 2007/0088851 discloses Devices, systems and methods of wireless delivery of targeted advertisements, including a modifier to receive a message transmitted by a first wireless communication device and intended for reception by a second wireless communication device, and to selectively add an advertisement to the message prior to its presentation on the second wireless communication device. The message is a Short Message Service (SMS) message, a Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) message, an Instant Messaging (IM) message, and an Electronic Mail (Email) message.
Tebourbi, US Pub No: 2015/0058050 A1, discloses generating contextualized travel-related offers for a traveler. A reservation system monitors travel activity for the traveler to detect travel events. The reservation system determines event parameters for a particular travel event responsive to detecting the particular travel event. Contextual data based at least in part on a user profile associated with the traveler and one or more booking initiators associated with a corresponding travel reservation is determined by the reservation system, and one or more contextualized travel-related offers based at least in part on the event parameters and the contextual data may be generated by the reservation system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 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 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights