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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/16/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1,3-4,16, 18-19 have been amended.
Claims 2,5-15,17,20-30 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 06/16/2025 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 “claim 1 does not recite any commercial interactions in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and instead recites a method of “dynamically controlling a remote devices display from a server based on device parameters and geo-perimeters”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) further recites "An example of a claim reciting advertising is found in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Ultramercial claimed an eleven-step method for displaying an advertisement (ad) in exchange for access to copyrighted media, comprising steps of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad. 772 F.3d. at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754. The Federal Circuit determined that the "combination of steps recites an abstraction-an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form" and thus was directed to an abstract idea, which the court described as "using advertising as an exchange or currency." Id" Unlike the example in Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, claim 1 does not recite selecting an ad, offering media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad. Instead, the limitations of claim 1 recite for a method of dynamically controlling a remote devices display based on receiving a location of a remote device, generating a geo-perimeter based on the location, generating a first command to cause the display of the remote device to display a first message based on a device parameter of the remote device, detecting a change in the location of the remote device, revising the geo-perimeter based at least on a speed in the change of the remote device, and generating a second command causing the display of the remote device to display a second message. of a remote device and generating geo-locations of the remote device based on at least a change in speed of the remote device. Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite any commercial interactions such as offering media in exchange for watching a selected ad, as found in Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits claim 1 is patent eligible under Step 2A Prong one (page 2/12 )”.
Examiner disagrees. dynamically controlling a remote devices display based on receiving a location of a remote device, generating a geo-perimeter based on the location, generating a first command to cause the display of the remote device to display a first message based on a device parameter of the remote device, detecting a change in the location of the remote device, revising the geo-perimeter based at least on a speed in the change of the remote device, and generating a second command causing the display of the remote device to display a second message, of a remote device and generating geo-locations of the remote device based on at least a change in speed of the remote device is 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 such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Furthermore, as per Applicant’s specification “a first command causing a first promotional message to be displayed on the remote device. The first promotional message is based on, at least in part, one or more message-selection parameters. second command causing a second promotional message to be displayed on the remote device. The second promotional message is based on, at least in part, the change in the one or more of the message-selection parameter(s) ( page 3/26) or paragraphs 16-17). Applicant ‘s specification also teaches “ detecting a change in one or more of the message-selection parameter(s), where the change can be one or more of: a change in respective databases of a subset of the selected set of one or more business entities, a change in time of the day, a change in the location of the remote device, or a change in history of promotional messages transmitted to the remote device (page 3/26 or paragraph 17). “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 ( page 16/26 or paragraph 93)”.
Accordingly, the claim recites commercial interactions such as generating and displaying promotion messages based on geo-locations analysis of user’s remote device. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims c1,3-4, 16, 18-19 rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that “The Office has not taken into account each limitation of claim 1, alone or in combination, as is required by MPEP 2106.04(d)(II). Applicant submits that, when taken at least in combination, the limitations of claim 1 provides a practical application in the field of server-remote device communications. For instance, by generating and transmitting a first command to a remote device based on device parameters, causing the remote device to display a first message caused by the first command, detecting a change in location of the remote device, revising a geo-perimeter, generating and transmitting a second command to the remote device based on the revised geo-perimeter, and displaying a second message caused by the second command, location based messages may be displayed on a user device based on a geo-perimeter of the remote device, thereby adapting the display of the remote device to provide information pertinent to a location of the remote device within a geo-perimeter. Under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), another consideration in determining integration of a judicial exception into a practical application includes "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." Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 applies or uses any alleged judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of any alleged judicial exception to a particular technological environment and is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize any judicial exception. For instance, at least the limitations of "identifying, using the device identifier, a user of the remote device generating a geo-perimeter based on the location, generating, based on a device parameter of the remote device, a first command to cause the display of the remote device to display a first message, transmitting to the device the first command causing the display of the remote device to display the first message, 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, wherein a greater speed in the change of location causes the geo-permitter to increase in size, generating, based on the revised geo-perimeter, a second command causing the display of the remote device to display a second message, and transmitting the second command to the remote device" of claim 1 are meaningful limitations that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application of dynamically controlling a display of a remote device. In other words, through the limitations of claim 1, messages may be displayed in a dynamic manner based on not only the geo-location of the remote device and a geo-perimeter, but also based on, at least in part, real-time changes in the information pertinent to the user of the remote device, which Applicant submits is a practical application (page 4/12)”.
Examiner disagrees. identifying, using the device identifier, a user of the remote device generating a geo-perimeter based on the location, generating, based on a device parameter of the remote device, a first command to cause the display of the remote device to display a first message, transmitting to the device the first command causing the display of the remote device to display the first message, 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, wherein a greater speed in the change of location causes the geo-permitter to increase in size, generating, based on the revised geo-perimeter, a second command causing the display of the remote device to display a second message, and transmitting the second command to the remote device" and/ or messages may be displayed in a dynamic manner based on not only the geo-location of the remote device and a geo-perimeter, but also based on, at least in part, real-time changes in the information pertinent to the user of the 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 (dynamically controlling a display of a remote device) 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 a digital device that displays to consumer user interfaces (Ul) and server to provide a consistent user experience via a user input 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.
Furthermore, the claimed server does not change nor effect the actual server itself. The server still has the same processor, the same amount of memory, and still functions in the stands way a computer is intended to function. The user interfaces (Uls) for performing user input is old and well known as per Usability.gov. As per Affinity v. Direct TV such generic user interfaces are generic computer components. 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 Office has taken into account each limitation of claim 1, alone or in combination, as is required by MPEP 2106.04(d)(II). Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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."(emphasis added). 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. Moreover, in evaluating the "apply it" exception, MPEP 2106.05(f) states that examiners may consider the following " (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception." Under point 1 of MPEP 2106.05(f), Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 recites specific details of how an outcome is provided, in this case the dynamic controlling of a remote device. For instance claim 1 recites "receiving from a remote device, a device identifier and a location of the remote device, identifying, using the device identifier, a user of the remote device, generating a geo-perimeter based on the location, generating, based on a device parameter of the remote device, a first command to cause the display of the remote device to display a first message, transmitting to the device the first command causing the display of the remote device to display the first message, 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, wherein a greater speed in the change of location causes the geo-permitter to increase in size, generating, based on the revised geo-perimeter, a second command causing the display of the remote device to display a second message, and transmitting the second command to the remote device." Applicant respectfully submits that the many elements of this limitation provide specific details on how a display of a remote device is dynamically updated. Under point 2 of MPEP 2106.05(f), Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 does not invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Claim 1 recites the generation of commands for causing remote devices to display messages and transmission thereof based at least on generation and revision of a geo-perimeter calculated by a location of a remote device, and Applicant respectfully asserts it is unclear as to what existing process is being performed… Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 does not recite limitations similar to any of the above listed examples, and the Office has not provided rationale to the contrary (page 6/12)”.
Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are similar to the one addressed above under Step 2A Prong one and Step 2A Prong Two in the proceeding section (s). Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “Under point 3 of MPEP 2106.05(f), Applicant respectfully submits that, as noted above with respect to point 1, the many limitations of claim 1 provide for a particularity of any alleged judicial exception. For instance, as stated under point 3 of MPEP 2106.05(f), "A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more...In contrast, limitations that confine the judicial exception to a particular, practical application of the judicial exception may amount to significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application." Here, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is directed to a particular field of endeavor of dynamically updating a display of a remote device based at least on device parameters and a revised geo-perimeter of a device, and therefore provides a particular, practical application of any alleged judicial exception. 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 7/12)”.
Examiner disagrees. dynamically updating a display of a remote device based at least on device parameters and a revised geo-perimeter of a 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 (dynamically controlling a display of a remote device) 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 a digital device that displays to consumer user interfaces (Ul) and server to provide a consistent user experience via a user input 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.
Furthermore, the claimed server does not change nor effect the actual server itself. The server still has the same processor, the same amount of memory, and still functions in the stands way a computer is intended to function. The user interfaces (Uls) for performing user input is old and well known as per Usability.gov. As per Affinity v. Direct TV such generic user interfaces are generic computer components. 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 Office has taken into account each limitation of claim 1, alone or in combination, as is required by MPEP 2106.04(d)(II). Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ Step 2B The Office states that claim 1 does not amount to more than any alleged judicial exception. Applicant respectfully traverses. Computer Implementation of an Abstract Idea In particular, the Office interprets the additional limitations of claim 1 as being a generic computer implementation that simply implements an abstract concept on a computer. However, as noted above with respect to MPEP 2106.05(f), no abstract idea has been identified and as such Applicant respectfully submits it is unclear as to what abstract concept is being simply implemented on a generic computer (page 8/12)”.
Examiner disagrees. The office Action has clearly (1) identified the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites the abstract idea, and (2) determined whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(a). The Office Action clearly stated that claim 1 for instance recite the following abstract idea of “receiving an identifier and a location; using the identifier; generating a geo-perimeter based on the location; generating, based on a device parameter first command to cause the display of the remote device to display a first message; and transmitting to the device the first command causing the display of the remote device to display the first message; detecting a change in the location of the remote device; revising the geo-perimeter based on the revised geo-perimeter a second command causing the display of the remote device to display a second message; and transmitting the second command to the remote device to cause the display of the remote device to display the second message”, are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, The Office Action has clearly identified which limitations of the instant claim (s), recite the abstract idea.
The Office Action also stated that the limitations as detailed above, falls within “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon 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). That is the Office action has also clearly stated and determined whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of remote device, display, server, operating system and database”, 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.
That is 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).
Furthermore, as evidenced from Applicant’s specification “ A computing system used to implement various embodiments may include general- purpose computers, vector-based processors, graphics processing units (GPUs), network appliances, mobile devices, or other electronic systems capable of receiving network data and performing computations. A computing system in general includes one or more processors, one or more memory modules, one or more storage devices, and one or more input/output devices that may be interconnected, for example, using a system bus. The processors are capable of processing instructions stored in a memory module and/or a storage device for execution thereof (page 20-21/26 or paragraph 122). 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 “ Unlike in Accenture, claim 1 is not directed to any abstract idea, evident by the omission of an identified abstract idea in the Office Action. The courts also noted that "The patents are directed to concepts for organizing data rather than to specific devices or systems" Id. Unlike in Accenture, claim 1 is not directed to concepts for organizing data, but is directed to a method for a specific server-remote device relation that allows for dynamically controlling a display of a remote device. Therefore, claim 1 is not directed to computer implementation of an abstract idea as the Office alleges (page 8/12)”.
Examiner disagrees. The office Action clearly (1) identified the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites the abstract idea, and (2) determined whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(a). The Office Action clearly stated that claim 1 for instance recite the following abstract idea of “”. That is, YES , the entire limitations of claim 1 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, The Office Action has clearly identified which limitations of the instant claim (s), recite the abstract idea.
The Office Action also stated that the limitations as detailed above, falls within “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon 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). That is the Office action has also clearly stated and determined whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed.
Furthermore, dynamically controlling a remote devices display based on receiving a location of a remote device, generating a geo-perimeter based on the location, generating a first command to cause the display of the remote device to display a first message based on a device parameter of the remote device, detecting a change in the location of the remote device, revising the geo-perimeter based at least on a speed in the change of the remote device, and generating a second command causing the display of the remote device to display a second message, of a remote device and generating geo-locations of the remote device based on at least a change in speed of the remote device is 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 such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. The claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). Accordingly, there is no omission of an identified abstract idea in the Office Action. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1,3-4, 16,18-19 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Extra-Solution Activity Additionally, the Office interprets the limitations of claim 1 as being insignificant extra- solution activity.
Applicant argues that “the limitations of claim 1 are not merely nominal or tangential, but rather are integrated wholly into claim 1. For instance, at least the transmission limitations identified by the Office are integrated into the final outcome of claim 1 of causing the display of the remote device to display a first and second message, allowing for dynamic controlling of a remote device from a server. Combination of Steps Moreover, as stated by MPEP 2106.07(a)(III), a new combination of steps in a process may be patent eligible even though all the steps of the combination were individually well known and in common use before the combination was made. While Applicant does not concede to the Office's allegations that claim 1 recites well-understood, routine, conventional steps, Applicant submits that even if claim 1 did recite well-understood, routine, conventional steps, that claim still provides a patent eligible combination of limitations. For instance, claim 1 recites an inventive concept of displaying messages in a dynamic manner based on not only the geo-location of the remote device and a geo-perimeter, but also based on, at least in part, real-time changes in the information pertinent to the user of the remote device, which Applicant submits is significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. The same arguments apply to claim 16, which has been amended to recite similarly to that of claim 1. 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 9/12)”.
Examiner disagrees. displaying messages in a dynamic manner based on not only the geo-location of the remote device and a geo-perimeter, based on, at least in part, real-time changes in the information pertinent to the user of the 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 ( causing the display of the remote device to display a first and second message, allowing for dynamic controlling of a remote device from a server) 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 a digital device that displays to consumer user interfaces (Ul) and server to provide a consistent user experience via a user input 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.
Furthermore, the claimed server does not change nor effect the actual server itself. The server still has the same processor, the same amount of memory, and still functions in the stands way a computer is intended to function. The user interfaces (Uls) for performing user input is old and well known as per Usability.gov. As per Affinity v. Direct TV such generic user interfaces are generic computer components. 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 Office has taken into account each limitation of claim 1, alone or in combination, as is required by MPEP 2106.04(d)(II).
Also, as stated in the Office Action, the recitation of transmission limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data. Transmission of data are well-understood, routine, conventional steps performed by generic computer component (s) function (s) in a typical computing environment.
Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1, 3-4, 16, and 18-19 rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103:
Applicant argues that “Busch does not disclose revising a geo-perimeter of a remote device, but rather determining target content associated with a particular business location based on a current likely course of travel or anticipated route to a business location. FIG. 4 As shown in FIG. 4 and described in paragraph [0348], targeted content associated with business location 200 may be displayed based upon previous courses 400 and a current likely course of travel or anticipate route 402, such as along major road 304 or parking lot 308. Velocity vectors 302 allow for determination that the user is turning on another major road, such as road 304. Busch is silent with revising any geo-perimeter, and therefore cannot disclose revising a geo-perimeter based on at least a speed in a change of location of a remote device. Thus, Busch does not disclose, teach, or suggest, "revising the geo-perimeter based on at least a speed in the change of location of the remote device" as instead Busch describes anticipating a route to a business location based on velocity vectors of a user traveling. 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 (page11/12)”.
Examiner disagrees. Busch in 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.
Therefore, the cited reference of Busch discloses the claimed limitation. The claim rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over the cited reference 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1, 3-4, are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claim (s) 16, 18-19 are directed to a machine (i.e. a system).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea of “receiving an identifier and a location; using the identifier; generating a geo-perimeter based on the location; generating, based on a device parameter first command to cause the display of the remote device to display a first message; and transmitting to the device the first command causing the display of the remote device to display the first message; detecting a change in the location of the remote device; revising the geo-perimeter based on the revised geo-perimeter a second command causing the display of the remote device to display a second message; and transmitting the second command to the remote device to cause the display of the remote device to display the second message”.
The Office Action also stated that the limitations as detailed above, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon 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).
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.
That is 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 a computer, or merely uses a computer 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 a 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 pur