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 .
An appeal brief has been filed on 12/07/2026. Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Codrington [US 20170220546A1, 2017-08-03], in view of Mehta [US 2018/0165364A1,2018-06-14].
In view of the appeal brief filed on 12/07/20205, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/HOSAIN T ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term, “a single document,” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 20 cannot be found in applicants’ disclosure. In paragraph [0010] applicants disclose (see below), “one or more of multiple languages in an electronic document,” however nowhere in the applicant disclosure can be found what “a single document” means. Examiner notes that “an electronic document” is not the same as “a single document.”
[0010] The system and the method disclosed herein address the above-recited need for automatically creating structured data objects for location-based information of a business entity rendered in one or more of multiple languages in an electronic document to automatically integrate one or more locations of the business entity into multiple location applications
For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted the “single document,” as a “single application” wherein content from multiple applications have been integrated for the purpose of processing the content by a single application. Multiple applications may use different languages and/or different formats etc.
Appeal brief filed 10/31/2025 refers to “a single document” is, however, the “single document” is not supported by applicants’ disclosure. See appeal brief, bottom paragraph of page 12.
Claims 2-10, 12-19, and 21-24 are rejected as being dependent on their respective base claims that are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Voinea [US PG-PUB 20130060764 published 2013-03-07] in view of Omoigui [US PG-PUB 20210312009 published 2021-10-07], further in view of Mehta [US PG-PUB 20180165364 published 2018-06-14].
With respect to claim 1, Voinea teaches a system for automatically extracting and generating structured data objects (Voinea, Fig 3, step 300 and 302 “automatic extraction; and par. [0013] “geo-entities”, Fig. 1, 106, are equated with claimed “structured data object”; see also Mehta Fig 1, step 108) for location-based information of a business entity (Voinea, Fig. 1, 104; Fig. 3, step 300 “geographic location”), the structured objects relating to locations of the business entity, the system comprising at least one processor, a non-transitory, and computer-readable storage medium operably and communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store computer program instructions executable by the at least one processor (Voinea, Fig. 7; see par. [0043]-[0057] for details); and
an automated object creation and location integration engine (Voinea, Fig 2 and par. [0022] disclose a computerized system, but does not explicitly call the system an engine) to access (for extracting location information) the document of a business entity (“geo-entities” in Fig. 3-5) using an identifier of the electronic document;
identify location-based objects (Fig. 3, 300) associated with the one or more locations of the business entity and using data science in algorithms (Voinea,par. [0036] “algorithm”)
transform the identified location-based objects into geocoded (Voinea, [0022], discloses “geocodes” derived from location based business entities) data;
automatically and/or dynamically create structured data objects for the geocoded data based on configurable criteria (Voinea, Fig. 3-5);
With respect to claim 1, Voinea does not explicitly teach a system wherein the structured data objects are rendered within a single electronic document that includes content in multiple languages, to automatically integrate and generate, analyze, and harness structured data for location-based information rendered in the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages. The limitation in claim “to enhance search engine optimization of websites comprising the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages” is a result, not a step that is performed.
With respect to claim 1, Omoigui, however teaches the aggregation of content from multiple different sources and multiple applications into a single application in a unified manner wherein the content can be in multiple languages (Omoigui, page 1, par. [0014], par. page 8, par. [0054], “languages from multiple countries”). Omoigui further teaches a system wherein the structured data objects are rendered within a single electronic document (Omoigui, page 1, par. [14] , “a single application”) that includes content the multiple languages (Omoigui, page 1, par. [0014], par. page 8, par. [0054], “languages from multiple countries”) using an identifier of the electronic document. Omoigui additionally teaches generating analyzing, and harnessing structured data for location-based information rendered in the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages, to enhance search engine optimization of websites comprising the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages Omoigui teaches the aggregation of content and unified functionality of multiple applications in a single application ((Omoigui, “aggregation in par. [0013] is equated with the claimed integration, the “single application” in [0014] is equated with the claimed “single document.” See also the 112(b) rejection above.
Voinea teaches extraction and construction of structured objects based on geographic location and (see Voinea, [0022]) geocodes, however does not explicitly disclose a single application that aggregates/combines the geo data/geocodes and geographic metadata . The Omoigui reference is directed to a same field of endeavor, i.e., aggregating contents from multiple applications. However, Omoigui teaches a super application that allows contents from multiple applications to be processed and rendered without putting the burden one a user to resolve the disparity of formats and/or languages used different applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the super application and/or the single application into Voinea because of following suggestions. Omoigui recognizes the problem with download and install many different applications and/or access a multitude of different websites….and the language wall between Internet contents [0002] and suggests and the use of a “super application such as this provides the functionalities of several applications through a single application that breaks down barriers and allows for unification of different processes and functionalities, with platform and user generated content in multiple formats, languages, and from multiple countries. The super application of Omoigui can obviate the use different applications because its super application uses embedded interfaces (see Omoigui [0020]) “As such, the super application provides an improved computing system that increase processing speed and reduces resource usage. (Omi, page 3, col. 2, par. [0021]). A person of skill would motivated to combine Voinea and Omoigui, because Omoigui explicitly disclose the improvement to combined environment, higher processing speed and reduced resource usage.
With respect to claim 1, Voinea, even though uses algorithms ((Voinea,par. [0036] “algorithm”). The Voinea-Omoigui combination does not explicitly teach using artificial intelligence (AL),machine learning, fuzzy logic, generating e a dynamic index-oriented map object and creating linked data nodes from the created structured data objects with the dynamic index-oriented map object as a core.
Mehta, a prior art reference directed to aggregating contents from multiple Web-based sources, teaches generating a dynamic index-oriented (Mehta, [0194] “structured data code map” and “index”; Mehta [0011] “The CVCS generates a structured data code map of the determined optimal schema codes to be coded in the received electronic document, [0268] or [0283] “dynamically generated schema map” ) map object for the created structured data objects specific to the one or more locations of the business entity; and
connecting the created structured data objects to the dynamic index-oriented map object by creating linked data nodes (Mehta, [0275] “ The graphic database 1509l is a database that uses graph structures for semantic queries with nodes, edges, and properties to represent and store data.”) from the created structured data objects with the dynamic index-oriented map object as a core. Mehta specifically teaches the dynamic indexing of contents for developing an enhanced search engine optimizers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system of Mehta in the Voinea-Omoigui combination because Mehta [0009] suggests bridging “ the gap between multiple platforms such as search engines and media platforms by combining the media platforms with the search engines to create a complete view of an indexing capability Mehta [0194]. One would be motivated to combine Voinea, Omoigui and Mehta teaches best practices of search engine optimization for easier and efficient web crawling, and because Mehta recognizes the need to improve the performance of search engine optimizers and thus, the addition of Mehta to Voinea-Omoigui would increase rankings of websites and drive traffic to the websites (Mehta, par. [0007], [0009] and [0168] – “The CVCS facilitates a high ranking of the website on a search engine results page and drives brand recognition, website visits, and sales.”
With respect to dependent claim 2, Voinea as modified by Omoigui and Mehta (hereafter the “Voinea-Omoigui-Mehta combination”) further teaches wherein the location-based objects comprise geographic coordinates, address information, a location name, physical locations of location-aware devices, and any combination thereof (Mehta [0181]the categorized repository comprises categories that affect a website's content, for example, local business, postal address, hours, product, offerings, services, articles, reviews, etc.) in the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages a single application in a unified manner wherein the content can be in multiple languages, see (Omoigui, page 1, par. [0014], par. page 8, par. [0054], “languages from multiple countries”). Omoigui further teaches a system wherein the structured data objects are rendered within a single electronic document (Omoigui, page 1, par. [14] , “a single application”) that includes content the multiple languages (Omoigui, page 1, par. [0014], par. page 8, par. [0054], “languages from multiple countries”)
With respect to dependent claim 3, the Voinea-Omoigui-Mehta combination further teaches wherein the geocoded data comprises geographic coordinate system parameters, global positioning system parameters, geospatial positioning parameters, celestial coordinate system parameters, and global navigation satellite system parameters. See Voinea, Fig. 7 and par. [0057].
With respect to dependent claim 4, Voinea and Omoigui teach the following: wherein the configurable criteria for automatically and/or dynamically creating the structured data objects for the geocoded data comprise templates, multilanguage content derived from the single electronic document in a multilanguage format, structured data markup schemas, best practices associated with schemas to suit a plurality of linked data object categories, and any combination thereof (Omoigui teaches a single document to have multiple languages etc.) in the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages a single application in a unified manner wherein the content can be in multiple languages, see (Omoigui, page 1, par. [0014], par. page 8, par. [0054], “languages from multiple countries”).
With respect to dependent claim 5, The Voinea-Omoigui-Mehta combination as modified by Mehta further teaches wherein one or more of the computer program instructions defined by the automated object creation and location integration engine, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to store the automatically and/or dynamically created structured data objects in an object database (the “data store” in Fig. 3, step 300 of Voinea is equated with the “object database”)
With respect to dependent claim 6, the Voinea-Omoigui-Mehta combination further teaches wherein one or more of the computer program instructions defined by the automated object creation and location integration engine, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to automatically and/or dynamically create the structured data objects using machine learning software and/or an artificial intelligence-based transformation (Mehta [0180] the CVCS identifies "location" as a significant factor for a business entity to optimize the website of the business entity for traffic. The CVCS identifies and weighs schema codes, for example, an offer schema code and a product schema code. The CVCS assigns a higher weight to the offer schema code than to the product schema code as the offer schema code allows location based item properties. The CVCS determine the categories of the validated content in the website. The CVCS analyzes the existing schema codes and adds the schema codes to the validated content of the website) of the geocoded data (Voinea, [0022]) location data such as through GPS and/or IP address data).
With respect to dependent claim 7, the Voinea-Omoigui-Mehta combination further teaches wherein the linked data nodes of the dynamic index-oriented map object comprise one of: JavaScript Object Notation for Linked Data nodes, Microdata nodes, JavaScript Object Notation for Linked Data (JSON-LD) in a HTML script tag, or other similar technologies including artificial intelligence (Al) and machine learning (ML) generated code, and Resource Description Framework in Attributes nodes, and wherein the one or more locations of the business entity are automatically integrated into the one or more of the plurality of location applications through the dynamic index-oriented map object with the linked data nodes using an application programming interface key (Mehta [0002] the resource description framework in attributes (RDFa), microdata, and JavaScript object notation for linked data (JSON-LD) ... ).
With respect to dependent claim 8, the Voinea-Omoigui-Mehta combination further teaches wherein one or more of the computer program instructions defined by the automated object creation and location integration engine, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to connect the dynamic index-oriented map object with the linked data nodes to the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages and thereby facilitating dynamic changes to the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages and dynamically optimizing the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages, wherein the dynamic changes to the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages are facilitated free of recreation of the structured data objects using the created linked data nodes of the dynamic index-oriented map object. See (Mehta [0180] the CVCS identifies "location" as a significant factor for a business entity to optimize the website of the business entity for traffic. The CVCS identifies and weighs schema codes, for example, an offer schema code and a product schema code. The CVCS assigns a higher weight to the offer schema code than to the product schema code as the offer schema code allows location based item properties. The CVCS determine the categories of the validated content in the website. The CVCS analyzes the existing schema codes and adds the schema codes to the validated content of the website).
With respect to dependent claim 9, the Voinea-Omoigui-Mehta combination further teaches wherein the location applications comprise map applications, map citations, location tagging, geofencing applications, and navigation applications implemented using satellite-based positioning, navigation, and timing systems of different types, wherein the satellite-based positioning, navigation, and timing systems of different types constitute a global navigation satellite system comprising a global position system, a geospatial positioning system, and a celestial coordinate system (Mehta [0180] the CVCS identifies "location" as a significant factor for a business entity to optimize the website of the business entity for traffic. The CVCS identifies and weighs schema codes, for example, an offer schema code and a product schema code. The CVCS assigns a higher weight to the offer schema code than to the product schema code as the offer schema code allows location based item properties).
With respect to dependent claim 10, the Voinea-Omoigui-Mehta combination further teaches wherein the identifier is a uniform resource locator of the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages (Omoigui, [0014] and [0054]) location data such as through GPS and/or IP address data) and wherein the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages is one of a website comprising the single electronic document with the content in the multiple languages, and a webpage of the website comprising the single electronic document with the content in the multiple. Omoigui, teaches the aggregation of content from multiple different sources and multiple applications into a single application in a unified manner wherein the content can be in multiple languages (Omoigui, page 1, par. [0014], par. page 8, par. [0054], “languages from multiple countries”). Omoigui further teaches a system wherein the structured data objects are rendered within a single electronic document (Omoigui, page 1, par. [14] , “a single application”) that includes content the multiple languages (Omoigui, page 1, par. [0014], par. page 8, par. [0054], “languages from multiple countries”).
Claims 11-19 are essentially the same as claims 1-10 except that they are directed to a different statutory class (a method) and are rejected under the same rationale as applied to claims 1-10. A computerized system recited in claims 1-10 can execute the steps of claims 1-10 once a program to do so is loaded.
Claims 20-24 are essentially the same as claims 1-10 and encompass the subject matters of claims 1-10. Claims 20-24 are directed to computer program product and can execute the steps of the method recited in claims 11-19. Therefore, claims 20-24 are rejected under the same rationale as applied to claims 1-19. The program product or software in claims 20-24 can be loaded in the system of claims 1-10 to execute the steps of claims 11-19.
This action is non-final. The arguments presented in the December 7, 2025 appeal brief are moot in view of the new 103 rejection issued in this action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAIN T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
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.
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132