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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are pending. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-11, 13, and 17-19 are amended. Claims 6 and 15 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the 101 arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 10-13, that the claims do not recite any alleged abstract ideas. Applicant argues that determining travel times between points of interest is not a method of managing personal behavior or a commercial or legal interaction as defined in the MPEP. Applicant also argues that human mind cannot generate a tessellation data structure having edges precomputed with weights indicating travel times across the edges, store the tessellation data structure with association to points of interest, select relevant tiles, and bulk-identify points of interest reachable within a given time, as provided by the features of claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as determining/estimating travel times between point of interest such as hotels, restaurants, attractions, restaurants, etc (See specification par. 0001-0002; par. 0019). Additionally, the claims recite concepts that are mental processes (observation, evaluation). This anaysis refers to some of the claim limitations such as identifying points of interest. The generic computer implementations do not change the character of the limitations. Additionally, it should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. Accordingly, examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings and proceed with the analysis in Step 2A Prong Two. (See MPEP2106.04(a)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on pages 13-16, that at Step 2A Prong two, the claims recite additional features with amount to practical application of any alleged abstract idea. Applicant argues that the claims provide a computationally efficient solution and provides various technical improvements in the field of mapping and routing technologies. Applicant also argues similarity to Enfish because the claims improve the functioning of the computer itself.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements (computer, processor, database, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, with respect to Enfish, the claims of Enfish were directed to a specific way that computers operate which included a self-referential table and the specification’ emphasis that the invention comprises a flexible self-referential table. In contrast here, the recitation of additional elements at a high level does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues, on pages 17-18, that the step 2B analysis is improper because the additional elements are only considered to the computer elements of the non-transitory CRM and memory and processors. Applicant argues that the database and other elements should also be included in the analysis. Applicant argues that the additional elements are not well understood routine and conventional and provide an improvement over prior art systems.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, the database is also are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The remaining steps of the claim limitations fall under the abstract idea. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Additionally, with respect to the arguments regarding well understood routine and conventional, Examiner has not categorized the additional elements as well understood, routine and conventional. Examiner notes that at Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B. (See MPEP 2106.07(a)).
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The closest prior art of record is included in the previous office action mailed on 01/14/2026. The claims would be considered allowable if re-written or amended to overcome the rejection in 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 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable media and therefore are an article of manufacture.
Claims 10-14 and 16-17 are directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
generating a tessellation data structure comprising a plurality of tiles corresponding to a plurality of geographical regions, each of the plurality of tiles comprising a plurality of edges, wherein generating the tessellation data structure comprises computing estimated travel times across the plurality of edges based on street-level map and routing data for the plurality of geographical regions;
storing, …, the tessellation data structure comprising the plurality of tiles stored with the estimated travel times across the plurality of edges;
storing,…, associations between a plurality of points of interest and corresponding tiles of the plurality of tiles based on locations of the plurality of points of interests relative to the plurality of geographical regions;
selecting, based on an input comprising a user-selected location within a first geographical region of the plurality of geographical regions, a first tile of the plurality of tiles associated with the first geographical region;
determining, using the tessellation data structure and based on the estimated travel times across the plurality of edges, a first set of the plurality of tiles reachable from the first tile in up to a first total travel time; and
identifying a first set of the plurality of points of interest associated with the first set of the plurality of tiles.
The limitations of Claim 10 recites:
A method, comprising:
generating, …, a tessellation data structure comprising a plurality of tiles corresponding to a plurality of geographical regions, each of the plurality of tiles comprising a plurality of edges, wherein generating the tessellation data structure comprises computing estimated travel times across the plurality of edges based on street-level map and routing data for the plurality of geographical regions;
storing…, the tessellation data structure comprising the plurality of tiles stored with the estimated travel times in a plurality of transportation modalities across the plurality of edges of the plurality of tiles;
storing, …, associations between a plurality of points of interest and corresponding tiles of the plurality of tiles based on locations of the plurality of points of interests relative to the plurality of geographical regions;
selecting, … based on an input comprising a user-selected location within a first geographical region of the plurality of geographical regions, a first tile of the plurality of tiles associated with the first geographical region;
determining, …, a first set of the plurality of tiles reachable from the first tile of the plurality of tiles in up to a first total travel time in a selected modality of the plurality of transportation modalities based on the estimated travel times across the plurality of edges in the selected modality; and
identifying, …, a first set of the plurality of points of interest associated with the first set of the plurality of tiles.
The limitations of Claim 18 recites:
generating a tessellation data structure comprising a plurality of tiles corresponding to a plurality of geographical regions, each of the plurality of tiles comprising a plurality of edges, wherein generating the tessellation data structure comprises computing estimated travel times across the plurality of edges via a plurality of transportation modalities based on street-level map and routing data for the plurality of geographical regions;
storing, …, the tessellation data structure comprising the plurality of tiles stored with the estimated travel times across the plurality of edges;
storing, …, associations between a plurality of points of interest and corresponding tiles of the plurality of tiles based on locations of the plurality of points of interest relative to the plurality of geographical regions;
selecting, based on an input comprising a user-selected location corresponding to a starting location within the plurality of geographical regions, a first tile associated with the starting location within the plurality of geographical regions and a second tile corresponding to a destination within the plurality of geographical regions; and
estimating total travel times in the plurality of transportation modalities from the first tile to the second tile using the tessellation data structure, wherein estimating the total travel times comprises summing the estimated travel times for crossing one or more subsets of the plurality of edges via the plurality of transportation modalities, wherein the one or more subsets of the plurality of edges provide one or more routes through the tessellation data structure from the first tile to the second tile.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as determining/estimating travel times between point of interest such as hotels, restaurants, attractions, restaurants, etc. Additionally, the claims recite concepts that are mental processes (observation, evaluation). The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
One or more databases
Claim 10:
Computer memory
One or more Processors
Claim 18:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
One or more databases
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9 11-14 and 16-17 and 19-20 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claim 1, 10, and 18, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-14 and 16-17 and 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 3:
Graphical user interface
Claim 11
User device
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628