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 action is in reply the response received on 30 September 2025.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-3 are pending and has been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 25 April 2025, has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 recite allowable subject matter and would be allowable if the claims are re-written or amended to overcome the current 101 rejection indicated in this Office Action below.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-3 are directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of locating a vacation rental. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
storing geo-tagged property data, wherein the geo-tagged property data includes rental availability for immediate occupancy and the system enables rental and access within minutes while the user is physically present at the property; and
receive location information from the user;
automatically process the location information and determine what properties have a geolocation near the geolocation of the at least one user and establish a proximity zone around each of the properties;
automatically find and retrieve geo-tagged property data corresponding to the properties near the geolocation of the at least one user;
receive location information from the user and determine if the location of the user is within a proximity zone of one of the properties;
in response to the location of the user within the proximity zone, automatically deliver a portion of the geo-tagged property data corresponding to the property within the proximity zone to the user as a message delivered with a prompt to send a reply message for obtaining additional geo-tagged property data;
receiving the reply message and deliver additional geo-tagged property data to the user as a message delivered; and
allow the user to rent and gain immediate access to the property within the proximity zone, to establish the proximity zone by calculating a predetermined radius around each property’s coordinates and monitoring real-time location data of the user to trigger automatic message delivery when the user enters the calculated proximity zone, and wherein allowing immediate access comprises transmitting access credentials to the user upon completion of the rental transaction.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of locating a vacation rental, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite steps for renting a located vacation rental, wherein geo-tagged property data includes rental availability for immediate occupancy and the system enables rental and access within minutes while the user is physically present at the property, requiring the steps of receiving the user’s location information, determine properties that are near the geolocation of the user, receive location information of the user and determine if the location of the user is within a proximity zone of at least one of the properties, retrieving the geo-tagged data corresponding to the properties near the location of the user, delivering the geo-tagged property data to the user as a message prompting the user to reply for obtaining additional geo-tagged property data, receiving the reply from the user and delivering the additional geo-tagged property data to the user as a message, and allowing the user to rent and gain access to the property within the proximity zone to establish the proximity zone by calculating a predetermined radius around each property’s coordinates and monitoring real-time location data of the user to trigger automatic message delivery when the user enters the calculated proximity zone, and wherein allowing immediate access comprises transmitting access credentials to the user upon completion of the rental transaction, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claim recites a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. In this case, representative claim 1 includes the additional elements of a server having a memory, a user computing device coupled to the server, wherein the server is programmed, the computing device, at least one computing device, a standard messaging application operating on the user computing device, the standard messaging application operating on the user computing device, the user computing device, the server is programmed, GPS coordinates, and electronic access. These additional elements individually and in combination do not integrate the exception into the practical application because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, as defined in the MPEP 2106.04(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claim recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an invention concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself), as discussed in MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a server having a memory, a user computing device coupled to the server, wherein the server is programmed, the computing device, at least one computing device, a standard messaging application operating on the user computing device, the standard messaging application operating on the user computing device, the user computing device, the server is programmed, GPS coordinates, and electronic access recited in the independent claim 1, are recited and described in a generic manner and merely apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). As such, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 2-3 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claim 2 includes the additional element of a vehicle. Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of a vehicle as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because it is merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 2 is directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 2, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claim 3 does not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, claims 2-3 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
allow the user computing device to rent and gain immediate access to the property within the proximity zone, wherein the server is programmed to establish the proximity zone by calculating a predetermined radius around each property’s GPS coordinates and monitoring real-time location data of the user computing device to trigger automatic message delivery when the device enters the calculated proximity zone, and wherein allowing immediate access comprises transmitting electronic access credentials to the user computing device upon completion of the rental transaction
The most apposite prior art of record includes Muro, et. al, (PGP No. US 2021/0140785 A1), Martino, B. (PGP No. US 2017/0330074 A1), and Hamilton, R., et al. (PGP No. US 2018/0005468 A1), to teach a system for a booking accommodation application system.
The reference of Muro describes a system for booking accommodations, such as listed rental properties (Muro, paragraphs [0027]-[0028]). The listed accommodations of Muro are stored in a database, where a user can access these listed properties by accessing the booking application (Muro, paragraphs [0031], [0045]). The user can access the application via their user device and can user the application to determine the geolocation from a specific location of the user using the device via GPS coordinates (Muro, paragraphs [0034] and [0045]). A map module of Muro can show the user using the application, accommodations, such as rental properties and other points of interest that are in proximity to the input geolocation (Muro, paragraph [0034]), and can dynamically update the display relative to the radius about a point of interest (Muro, paragraphs [0036] and [0045]). The application is able to display the specific property information of interest to the user once the location information of the user has been determined (Muro, paragraphs [0034], [0039], and [0045]). The application of Muro is capable also providing other accommodation information for each property, such as the travel time it will take for the user to travel to the location (Muro, paragraph [0045]).
The reference of Martino is relied upon to demonstrate a messaging application that operates on a user device that can send a user notifications associated with a user travel events, where the messaging application comprises SMS messaging, and can send indications for a user action, such as ask if a user would like to select or schedule an alternative prompt via the message (Martino, see: paragraphs [0042], and see: FIG. 4).
Next, the reference of Hamilton is merely relied upon to describe that a user may check into a hotel or rental property by obtaining access to the property based on determined location information, where the system comprises determining a close proximity of the user/guest via GPS coordinates once the user/guest is right outside the hotel room or property (Hamilton, see: paragraphs [0013], [0033], and FIG. 1).
Although Muro, Martino, and Hamilton describes these features, none of the references describe or teach the allowable features as indicated above. The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled House Rental Application, published by River Publishers in International Conference on Recent Trends in Data Science and its Applications (2004), documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as House Rental, describes a publication that provides information on e-rental application use that allows renters and landlords to manage access to rental properties, and exploring the user of GPS to improve the application process, making it quicker and easier for renters to find properties and landlords to easily allow rental details. Although House Rental describes such features, the NPL document does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 112, and in light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claim, the rejection has now been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 30 September 2025, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 4-5 of the remarks stating “The amended claim 1 now recites specific technical details that transform the abstract concept into a concrete technical implementation with meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea,” and “amended claim 1 requires continuous processing of location data and conditional execution based on geographic boundaries, which constitutes a specific technological solution rather than merely applying an abstract idea on a generic computer,” and further stating “The combination of GPS coordinate calculations, real-time location monitoring, automatic triggering based on geographic proximity, and electronic credential transmission creates a technological solution,” and “claim 1 no longer merely uses generic computer components to perform abstract steps,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, even when considering the amendments, the claims are directed to an abstract idea of locating a vacation rental. The abstract idea in this case, falls into the enumerated sub-grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, and the activities are related to sales activities or behaviors. Further, under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the additional elements that are recited in the claims, whether considered individually or in combination, and considering the claim as a whole, are not recited in a manner that would be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited additional elements are still recited in a generic manner and are being used to apply the abstract idea with a general purpose computer and computing components. Further, the MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. Although the claims include computer technology such as a server having a memory, a user computing device coupled to the server, wherein the server is programmed, the computing device, at least one computing device, a standard messaging application operating on the user computing device, the standard messaging application operating on the user computing device, the user computing device, the server is programmed, GPS coordinates, and electronic access, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of locating a vacation rental. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improved location of a rental property, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve locating of a vacation rental, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 5 of the remarks stating “the technical limitations in amended claim 1 provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself by requiring specific computation processes, real-time data processing, and automated response systems based on geographic positioning technology,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the amended claims do not provide an inventive concept and do not amount significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the additional elements in this case, are still recited in a generic manner and are being used to apply the abstract idea with a generically recited computer. The additional elements are utilized to perform the functions of the claims, and although the additional elements are beyond the abstract idea that is recited, are still not recited in a manner that provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they are recited in a generic manner. Thus, the claims do not provide significantly more than that abstract idea itself and do not provide an inventive concept , and therefore the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 30 September 2025 are considered and persuasive. In light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claims now recite allowable subject matter, as indicated above, and therefore the 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688