Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 1, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 6, 15, 19, 25, 26, 28, 32, 33, and 37 have been amended.
Claims 38-43 have been added.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 14, 17, 18, 27, 30, 31, 35, and 36 have been cancelled.
Claims 2, 3, 6-13, 15, 16, 19-26, 28, 29, 32-34, and 37-43 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 2, 3, 6-13, 15, 16, 19-26, 28, 29, 32-34, and 37-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 2, 3, 6-13, 38, 39 and 40 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 15, 16, 19-26, 28, 29, 32-34, 37, and 41-43 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 2, 3, 6-13, 15, 16, 19-26, 28, 29, 32-34, and 37-43 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 2 (representative of independent claim(s) 15, 28 and 33) recites the following steps:
determining, based on sampling rate criterion, a currently sampled location fix of the [user]
determining an incremental change in position between the currently sampled location fix of the mobile device with a prior sampled location fix of the [user]
storing the currently sampled location fix as a visited location at least based on the incremental change being greater than an incremental change threshold;
storing a dwell time of the [user] at the visited location;
adjusting a sampling rate of the sampling rate criterion, wherein the sampling rate is adjusted based on one or more measured motion parameters of the [user], a dwell time of the [user] at the visited location, or a combination thereof;
determining a set of significant locations of the mobile device based at least on aggregated dwell-times corresponding to lengths of dwell times of the mobile device at each visited location over multiple location sampling instances; and
generating a geographic mapping of one or more significant locations of the set of significant locations.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) determining a set of significant locations for the user based at least on aggregated dwell-times being greater than a threshold (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 2 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 15, 28 and 33 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
executed by the mobile device
wireless signals received by the mobile device;
an electronic database,
a memory; at least one transceiver; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver, the at least one processor configured to: processor
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a mobile device, cause the mobile device to:
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of " adjust a sampling rate of the sampling rate criterion to reduce power consumption at the mobile device " serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “adjust a sampling rate of the sampling rate criterion to reduce power consumption at the mobile device” serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 11,20, 21, 25 and 26 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 29, 32, 34, 37 and 38-43 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
mobile device
electronic database,
at least one processor
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 3, 6-13, 15, 16, 19-26, 28, 29, 32-34, and 37-43 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horvitz (2007/0005419) in view of Vengroff (2009/0005987) and Busch (2007 /0085673).
Claims 2, 15 28 and 33
Horvitz teaches a method of operating a mobile device, comprising:
determining, based on sampling rate criterion executed by the mobile device, a currently sampled location fix of the mobile device based on wireless signals received by the mobile device (Horvitz [0080]); See at least “Associated with the first structure ( denoted STRUCT 1) is other data such as the time (denoted TIMEu) that device location data ( denoted DLDu) was transmitted ( or received) from a wireless device of a user that was detected.”
determining an incremental change in position between the currently sampled location fix of the mobile device with a prior sampled location fix of the mobile device (Horvitz [0075]); See at least “If the system can detect a change in location coordinates of the user, within a predetermined movement range, the user is defined as moving away from the location, and the system cannot only record this…” See also [0076] “the system could be processing information related to millions of users as they pause, dwell, and then move from a location to location.”
storing, in an electronic database, the currently sampled location fix as a visited location at least based on the incremental change being greater than an incremental change threshold (Horvitz [0039]); See at least “The disclosed innovation builds a database of places that people stop, based on, for example, watching location tracking signals ( e.g., GPS or other signals) show a velocity going to zero for an extended period of time or to a slow velocity when GPS signals are lost (e.g., entering "parking garage scenario"), and based on logs of where people stop and do things. Additionally, the logs can include where a particular user (the "primary subject" of the inferences) stops.”
storing, in the electronic database, a dwell time of the mobile device at the visited location (Horvitz [0036][0039]); See at least [0036]“if the location information does not change over a period of time, the user's "dwell time" can be processed and stored as a further indication of interest by the user in staying at that location.”
adjusting a sampling rate of the sampling rate criterion, wherein the sampling rate is adjusted based on one or more measured motion parameters of the mobile device, a dwell time of the mobile device at the visited location, or a combination thereof; (Horvitz [0076]). See at least “For example, when a user is traveling faster than a predetermined speed, it may be determined and implemented according to one or more executable rules that there is no need to record information related to this user until the user speed drops below a threshold…” and “If it determined that the user is taking interest in a particular location, sampling of pause data, dwell data, and user interaction data can be increased [adjusted].”
EXAMINER NOTE: Examiner notes that claim language (i.e. to reduce power consumption at the mobile device) that describes the intended purpose of a limitation are generally not granted patentable weight, such as phrases that contain “can be'1 or “for the purposes of’ etc.
Horvitz does not explicitly teach the limitation below. Vengroff teaches:
determining a set of significant locations of the mobile device based at least on aggregated dwell-times corresponding to lengths of dwell times of the mobile device at each visited location over multiple location sampling instances as indicated in the electronic database (Vengroff [0016][0029]); See at least [0029] "a destination location of interest [significant location] may similarly be determined in various manners in various embodiments. For example, a user visit to a location may be considered to have occurred only if one or more indicated criteria are satisfied, such as if a user spends a sufficient duration of time at or near the location ( e.g., a predefined minimum threshold amount of time, an amount of time that is statistically significant when compared to other activities of the user and/or of other users, an amount of time that is otherwise measured relative to other travel or activities of the user, etc.). See also [0016] "learning of locations for points of interest based on data from track logs or other stores of user location-related data; performing spatial-temporal clustering of location points of possible interest, such as by determining time and space changes that are sufficiently small that it is 'likely' that multiple location data sample points are within a single point of interest's location boundaries.. "
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the method of determining a set of significant locations for the user of the mobile device, as taught by Busch, using dwell times, as taught by Vengroff, to automatically determine locations of interests to each user visiting a location (Vengroff [0002]).
Neither reference explicitly teaches mapping. Busch teaches:
and generating a geographic mapping of one or more significant locations of the set of significant locations (Busch [Column 38 Lines 6-10]). See at least “In one implementation, when the user of a mobile device is using a mapping website or program such as Google Maps or Google Earth, at least some of the data collected from the phone ( e.g., previous locations, businesses the user frequents, etc.) is overlaid on a map.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the method of determining a set of significant locations for the user of the mobile device, as taught by Busch ad Vengroff, mapping significant locations, as taught by Busch, to provide relevant content to users a locations that are important to them (Busch [Column 1 Lines 20-30]).
Claims 3, 16 , 29 and 34
Modified Horvitz, Vengroff and Busch disclose the limitations above. Modified Horvitz further teaches:
determining one or more demographic characteristics of a user of the mobile device based, at least in part, on the geographic mapping (Horvitz [0077][0081]). See at least [0077]“For example, if after the user has been identified, and according to user preferences, it is determined that the user is a pregnant female and thirty years-old…” [0081] “It is to be appreciated that other database fields (not shown) can be employed that are used to further define user activities and demographics (e.g., age, sex, type of vehicle, family members, ... ), as desired for the particular application of the invention.”
Claims 6, 19 32 and 37
Modified Horvitz, Vengroff and Busch disclose the limitations above. Modified Horvitz further teaches:
a current speed of the mobile device; a stationary status of the mobile device; a moving status of the mobile device; or any combination thereof (Horvitz [0036]). See “Additionally, if the location information does not change over a period of time, the user's "dwell time" can be processed and stored as a further indication of interest by the user in staying at that location. Thus, given location information, speed, heading, and dwell of a user at a given location, various types and amounts of information can be processed, and where suitable, presented to the user.”
Claims 7 and 20
Modified Horvitz, Vengroff and Busch disclose the limitations above. Modified Busch further teaches:
the geographic mapping indicates a relative proximity between the one or more significant locations of the set of significant locations with respect to one or more other significant locations of the set of significant locations (Busch [Column 33 Lines 43-67]). See at least "a user of a mobile device may not know where their favorite businesses, or similar businesses, are located in relation to their hotel. Furthermore, the system does not have a database of routes available to base targeted advertisements or other information off of for the user because the user has not interacted with businesses in the new location. The system is able to provide a user with a map view or listing, of the user's favorite businesses in relation to any given location, where any given location would include one or more significant locations. See also [Column 38 Lines 6-10]). "In one implementation, when the user of a mobile device is using a mapping website or program such as Google Maps or Google Earth, at least some of the data collected from the phone (e.g., previous locations, businesses the user frequents, etc.) is overlaid on a map."
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the method of determining a set of significant locations for the user of the mobile device, as taught by Busch ad Vengroff, mapping significant locations, as taught by Busch, to provide relevant content to users a locations that are important to them (Busch [Column 1 Lines 20-30]).
Claims 8 and 21
Modified Horvitz, Vengroff and Busch disclose the limitations above. Modified Busch further teaches:
the geographic mapping indicates a relative proximity between the one or more significant locations of the set of significant locations with respect to one or more locations of the set of visited locations that do not qualify as significant locations of the set of significant locations (Busch [Column 33 Lines 50-60]) Where the reference teaches "For purposes of illustration and without limitation, if the system knows that the user of a particular mobile device enjoys coffee shops, particularly Starbucks®, fast food restaurants, particularly McDonalds®, and grocery stores, particularly Safeway®, and the user travels to Chicago and is not aware of where their favorite branded locations are with respect to their hotel, the user is able to see a map with a number of their favorite businesses, or similar establishments, overlaid simultaneously on the map." See also "Results of similar business establishments may be provided that are more convenient to access from the current location of the user." The similar business establishments would be shown but not as significant locations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the method of determining a set of significant locations for the user of the mobile device, as taught by Busch ad Vengroff, mapping significant locations, as taught by Busch, to provide relevant content to users a locations that are important to them (Busch [Column 1 Lines 20-30]).
Claims 9 and 22
Modified Horvitz, Vengroff and Busch disclose the limitations above. Modified Horvitz further teaches:
providing a ranked indication of visited locations of the set of significant locations to a user of the mobile device (Horvitz [0046]). Which discloses levels of priorities.
Claims 10 and 23
Modified Horvitz, Vengroff and Busch disclose the limitations above. Modified Horvitz further teaches:
classifying one or more significant locations of the set of significant locations based on the aggregated dwell-times (Horvitz [0036]). See “Additionally, if the location information does not change over a period of time, the user's "dwell time" can be processed and stored as a further indication of interest [significant location] by the user in staying at that location.”
Claims 11 and 24
Modified Horvitz, Vengroff and Busch disclose the limitations above. Modified Vengroff further teaches:
classifying a significant location having a greatest aggregated dwell-time as a home location (Vengroff [0029][0059]) See at least "a destination location of interest [significant location] may similarly be determined in various manners in various embodiments. For example, a user visit to a location may be considered to have occurred only if one or more indicated criteria are satisfied, such as if a user spends a sufficient duration of time at or near the location ( e.g., a predefined minimum threshold amount of time, an amount of time that is statistically significant when compared to other activities of the user and/or of other users [greatest aggregated dwell time], an amount of time that is otherwise measured relative to other travel or activities of the user, etc.).
EXAMINER NOTE: Although the limitation has been addressed in view of prior art, the Examiner notes that the particular type of classification (i.e. “home location” as claimed) is considered non-functional descriptive material, of which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method in such a way as to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the method as claimed. As such, the non-functional descriptive material limitation can be given little to no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. The functional limitation is determining a location of significance or interest based on dwell time. The reference cited teaches this. Appropriate correction is required.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the method of determining a set of significant locations for the user of the mobile device, as taught by Busch, using dwell times, as taught by Vengroff, to automatically determine locations of interests to each user visiting a location (Vengroff [0002]).
Claims 12 and 25
Modified Horvitz, Vengroff and Busch disclose the limitations above. Modified Busch further teaches:
storing the currently sampled location fix in the electronic database as a visited location further based on a dwell time of the mobile device at the currently sampled location fix being greater than a dwell-time threshold (Busch [Column 18 Lines 29-39]) Where the data set includes time a user spends in the store, see also [Column 22 Lines 51-52] where the data sets (which include dwell time) are stored in a database.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the method of determining a set of significant locations for the user of the mobile device, as taught by Busch ad Vengroff, mapping significant locations, as taught by Busch, to provide relevant content to users a locations that are important to them (Busch [Column 1 Lines 20-30]).
Claims 13 and 26
Modified Horvitz, Vengroff and Busch disclose the limitations above. Modified Busch further teaches:
storing the currently sampled location fix as a visited location in the electronic database further based on a number of visits of the mobile device to the currently sampled location fix being greater than a visited number threshold (Busch [Column 16 Lines 34-41]). See also [Column 32 Lines 66- 67; Column 33 Lines 1-5] where the reference teaches "In some forms of the invention, a user's favorite businesses and attractions are determined. For purposes of illustration and without limitation, these locations may be determined by analyzing the location information to determine the frequency with which the user of the mobile device visits particular businesses or particular types of businesses." See also [Column 18 Lines 29-39] Where the data set includes time a user spends in the store, see [Column 22 Lines 51-52] where the data sets (which include dwell time) are stored in a database.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the method of determining a set of significant locations for the user of the mobile device, as taught by Busch ad Vengroff, mapping significant locations, as taught by Busch, to provide relevant content to users a locations that are important to them (Busch [Column 1 Lines 20-30]).
Claims 38 and 41
Modified Horvitz, Vengroff and Busch disclose the limitations above. Modified Horvitz further teaches:
the sampling rate of the sampling rate criterion is reduced based on a stationary state of the mobile device; a reduction in speed of the mobile device; a measured dwell-time at the visited location exceeding a threshold duration; or any combination thereof (Horvitz [0036]). See at least “if the location information does not change over a period of time, the user's "dwell time" can be processed and stored as a further indication of interest by the user in staying at that location. Examiner interprets the data being stored and processed to mean that it is no longer being actively captured.
Claims 39 and 42
Modified Horvitz, Vengroff and Busch disclose the limitations above. Modified Horvitz further teaches:
the sampling rate of the sampling rate criterion is increased based on the mobile device going from a stationary state to a moving state; an increase in speed of the mobile device; or a combination thereof. (Horvitz [0076]). See at least “If it determined that the user is taking interest in a particular location, sampling of pause data, dwell data, and user interaction data can be increased [adjusted].”
Claims 40 and 43
Modified Horvitz, Vengroff and Busch disclose the limitations above. Modified Horvitz further teaches:
the sampling rate of the sampling rate criterion is set at a minimum fixed sampling rate when the mobile device is in a stationary state (Horvitz [0036]). See at least “if the location information does not change over a period of time, the user's "dwell time" can be processed and stored as a further indication of interest by the user in staying at that location. Examiner interprets the data being stored and processed to mean that it is no longer being actively captured.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered. The rejection is maintained in light of the newly applied prior art Horvitz (2007/0005419).
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues: Claim 2 has been amended to include features relating to adjustments to the sampling rate of the sensing rate criterion to reduce power consumption at the mobile device. Such elements relate to improving the power performance of the mobile device in the context of the claimed method and, as such, add further patentable subject matter to the claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim of reducing power consumption is considered to be intended use and merely a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims accomplishes the claimed subject matter of reducing power consumption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626