DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the reply and Terminal Disclaimer filed on June 10, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ filing of the Terminal Disclaimer has been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 101, Applicants argued that the features of “training a machine learning model” and “using the trained machine learning model, determining a particular visitation metric for a particular POI are not actions that can be practically performed in the human mind.
Upon further review of claims, training a machine learning model to predict a popularity metric is a mathematical process where the model learns a statistical function mapping input variables such as the visitation data, road classification, population density and nearby POI counts, to a predicted popularity method (output variable). Accordingly, the mathematical process is a regression analysis or statistical inference.
The claims also recited a mental process. A skilled analyst can perform the same task as the machine learning model such as perform the same predictive task manually: gather visitation data for known POIs, identify patterns, and extrapolate to predict the popularity of an unknown POI based on its road classification, surrounding population density, and nearby POI counts. Mental processes include "concepts that humans can perform in their minds or with pen and paper.
The claims do not improve how the computer, the machine learning model architecture or the system operates. The claims use a generic machine learning model to predict a data value. Accordingly, the reject under 35 USC 101 remains.
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.
Claim 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process) and claim 11 is directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
training a machine learning model to predict at least one visitation metric that reflects visitation of points of interest (POIs) for which visitation metrics are not currently available;
wherein training the machine learning model comprises training the machine learning model using a training dataset comprising:
visitation data for one or more points of interest for which visitation metrics are currently available, and visitation metrics for the one or more points of interest;
using the trained machine learning model, determining a particular visitation metric for a particular POI for which visitation metrics are not currently available based on one or more inputs associated with the particular POI.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers gathering and analyzing data and a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers organizing human activity. Specifically, the “training” and using “a machine learning model” is mathematical processing. Further, the “determining a particular popularity metric” is resource allocation and planning. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the nonbolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
training a machine learning model to predict at least one popularity metric that reflects popularity of points of interest (POIs) for which popularity metrics are not currently available;
wherein training the machine learning model comprises training the machine learning model using a training dataset comprising:
visitation data for one or more POIs for which popularity metrics are currently available, and popularity metrics for the one or more POIs;
using the trained machine learning model, determining a particular popularity metric for a particular POI for which popularity metrics are not currently available based on one or more inputs associated with the particular POI.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations, there is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. More particularly, there is no recited change to the way the computer, ML model, network or hardware functions. There are no additional elements that apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claims 11-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101 for at least the same reasons of claims 1-10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is 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 DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-3965. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
/DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights