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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 08/04/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1, 3 – 13, 15 – 16, and 18 – 20, and 22 – 24 are pending, claim 21 being presently cancelled, claim 24 being new.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 – 13, 15 – 16, and 18 – 20, and 22 – 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a method and an apparatus. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the Examiner maintains that the claims, as a whole, describe learning mobility patterns of a user that identify points-of-interest in order to score certain areas based on those patterns. This depicts managing personal behavior of that user as visit the points of interest and scoring and rating those points of interest in relation to each other. Social activities are included within the managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people; which is a sub-category of the certain method of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 16, which is illustrative of claims 1 and 13, contains the elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method comprising: learning mobility patterns of a user to identify points-of-interest relevant to the user, wherein the mobility patterns are established based on sensor data reflecting movement detected at a mobile device of the user;
automatically populate a point-of-interest table associated with the user, wherein the point-of-interest table identifies point-of-interest categories and a relative importance of each of the point-of-interest categories to the user based on learned mobility patterns derived from the sensor data;
providing for display on a user interface of the point-of-interest categories and the relative importance of each of the point-of-interest categories;
providing a user interface element for manual manipulation of the relative importance of each of the point-of-interest categories;
computing isolines within a geographic region from points-of-interest in point-of-interest categories identified as relevant to a user based on one or more of: travel times or distances;
determining an area of interest within the geographic region based on the isolines;
determining exclusion areas within the area of interest, wherein the exclusion areas within the area of interest comprise areas exceeding a maximum average price per unit area for at least one of residential rental rates or residential property prices;
segmenting the area of interest less the exclusion areas into a plurality of candidate areas;
calculating a score for each of the plurality of candidate areas, wherein the score for a candidate area is determined based on a subset of points-of-interest in the point-of-interest categories satisfying point-of-interest category-specific travel times relative to the candidate area established by isolines for the points-of-interest of the subset of points-of-interest and a relative importance of point-of-interest categories of the subset of points-of-interest; and
generating a map for presentation on a graphical user interface identifying the plurality of candidate areas and a visual representation of respective scores of the plurality of candidate areas.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1, 13, and 16, recite the following additional elements:
An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code;
sensor data;
a mobile device;
a user interface;
a user interface element;
A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0042 - 0048], and Figure 2, as filed. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code; sensor data; a mobile device; a user interface; a user interface element; a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 3, 15, and 18, contain further embellishments to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1, 13, and 16. Recitations to the data in map layers are the raw data that form the categories to be scored and are considered insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering. Furthermore, these claims just recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 4 – 9, and 19 – 20, 22, and 24, contain further embellishments to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1 and 16. Recitations to the categories relevant to a user and one or more individuals associated with the user and areas of interest based on isolines further define the users whose mobility patterns are monitored; thus, describing whose personal behavior (social activities within areas) these elements are directed to. New claim 24 describes the frequencies of this certain behavior and social activities, thus, also directed to the abstract idea of claim 1. Furthermore, these claims just recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 10 – 12 and 23, contain further embellishments to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1 and 16. Recitations to the generating a map with visual indicators are refinements to identifying the points-of-interest and scoring certain areas based on personal behavior (a user’s mobility patterns of interacting with or at the point-of-interest). Furthermore, these claims just recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1, 3 – 13, 15 – 16, and 18 – 20, and 22 – 24, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Claims Distinguished Over Prior Art
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 16, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. After updated research due to amendments to the claims, the Examiner maintains the conclusion detailed within the Office Action filed 04/07/2025.
Regarding claims 3 – 12, 15, and 18 – 20, and 22 – 24, based on their dependencies to independent claims 1, 13, and 16, as well as reciting further limiting claimed elements, are also distinguished over prior art.
Accordingly, the current claim set, i.e., claims 1, 3 – 13, 15 – 16, 18 – 20, and 22 – 24, is distinguished over prior art.
Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections within this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s first argument discusses rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant’s first contention is that the claims are not directed to “interactions between people…including social activities”. See page 11. Applicant adds that the amendments to claim 1 “…further clarify the statutory nature of the claim as the mobility patterns of a user are established from movement of a mobile device of the user…” See page 12. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant.
Newly amended claim 1 broadly describes that sensor data of a mobile device is learned. The mobile device must implicitly be carried by the user as the user conducts social activities: “[m]obility data, as described herein, is data reflecting the movements of one or more people as they travel within a geographic area.” “This data can provide movement patterns of a user”. See Specification [0052]. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that learning mobility patterns of a user describes certain interactions of the user as they perform social functions: “…living, working, supplying, caring, learning, and enjoying.” Specification [0067]. The Examiner also points to the following disclosure: “Mobility data can further identify activities that a user enjoys, such as running or cycling along a river. Mobility data can be collected to identify a wide variety -15-A of aspects of a user's daily life and be useful for embodiments of the present disclosure in identifying a location to reside.” Specification [0052]. Therefore, the Examine concludes that amended claim 1 not only recites the above elements that describes human activity, but also includes other elements, currently amended or as previously presented, that describe certain methods of organizing human activity. This conclusion is detailed above, under Step 2A, Prong One, analysis. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues that the amended claims provide an improvement over any inferred abstract idea. See page 12. Applicant argues that the use of mobility patterns and presentation on a map “improves the process of identifying the optimal destination for a user…” Page 12. This argument is better set within Prong Two analysis, but nevertheless, this argument is not persuasive. An improvement to identifying an optimal destination might be directed to improving a user’s selection process, or area evaluations; however, this is not an improvement to technology that might show integration into a practical application. This would be more an improvement to an abstract idea of a user’s social activities, but this improvement does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant adds to Prong Two analysis, and integration into a practical application, on Page 13. Applicant contends that populating a table with ‘poi’ data and a user interface for manual manipulation provides a “practical user interface whereby a user can review what is learned from their mobility patterns…” Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument.
Analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two, requires the Examiner to evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The Examiners has used considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.04(d), subsection I in accordance with the procedure described in MPEP 2106.04(d), subsection II to evaluate whether the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Based on this analysis, the Examiner has identified the following certain additional elements within the amended claims: An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code; sensor data; a mobile device; a user interface; a user interface element; A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein.
These elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Because Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0042 - 0048], and Figure 2, the Examiner has concluded that these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Those descriptions are included here: “Regardless of the type of device that embodies the local user device 10, the user device may be embodied as an apparatus 20 as shown in Figure 2.” Specification [0042]. See also, Specification [0049]; “The apparatus 20 of example embodiments, particularly when embodying a mobile user device, may further include one or more sensors 30 which may include location sensors, such as global positioning system (GPS) sensors, sensors to detect wireless signals for wireless signal fingerprinting, sensors to identify an environment of the apparatus 20 such as image sensors for identifying a location of the apparatus 20, or any variety of sensors which may provide the apparatus 20 with an indication of location.”. Regarding an interface, the Examiner points to Specification [0050]: “For example, such an apparatus may include a laptop computer, desktop computer, tablet computer, mobile phone, or the like. Each of which may be capable of providing a graphical user interface (e.g., presented via display or user interface 28) to a user for interaction with a map providing mobility information…” Based on these definitions, the Examiner maintains the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) adds that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner adds that newly added elements such as providing a display is an ordinary description of presenting data. Merely providing a map on an interface, and providing an element for manual manipulation does not indicate an improvement to any technology. Certain new claim elements merely present the outcome of (sensor) data gathering and do not definitely claim that ranking relativeness is performed. Only an element that may be selected is described. There is no transformation to any display as a result of user manipulation that may show an improved interface. The Examiner notes that dependent claim 10, for example, shows certain modifications to the display that might show a practical application as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, such as an improved user interface. Applicant’s amended claims merely describe common devices operating within their ordinary capacity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL document discloses geo-spotting.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629