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 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 07/08/2026, with respect to the 101 arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 10-13, that the claim 1 is not a certain method of organizing human activity. 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 claim 1 is not a mental process. Applicant argues that the human mind cannot transform detailed street-level map and routing data into a tessellation, compute estimated travel times across edges of the tessellation.
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 analysis refers to some of the claim limitations such as identifying points of interest and calculating time between travel points. 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 reflect a technological solution to the problem that provides an innovative way of identifying proximity information, identifying sets of points of interest reachable in desired amounts of time, and providing the identified points of interest to users in a computationally efficient manner. Applicant argues that various implementations of the claimed solution may significantly reduce computation resource consumption and/or latency time in providing results to users, as outlined by the non-limiting examples described throughout the asfiled application. Applicant also argues that similar to Enfish, claim 1 provides an improvement over existing technology.
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. Examiner notes that The 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. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art) (e.g. may may significantly reduce computation resource consumption and/or latency time in providing results), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. (See MPEP2106.04(d)(1)). The alleged improvement to identifying proximity information, identifying sets of points of interest reachable in desired amounts of time, and providing the identified points of interest to users appears to be an improvement to user experience and not a technology or technical field.
Applicant argues, on pages 16-18, 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)).
Applicant argues, on pages 18-25, that claims 10 and 18 have been amended differently to not recite an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims still recite an abstract idea and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong two, and they do not provide significantly more at Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
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:
transforming street-level map and routing data for the plurality of geographical regions into the plurality of tiles; and
computing estimated travel times across the plurality of edges based on the street- level map and routing data for the plurality of geographical regions by determining, for each edge, an estimated travel time for crossing the edge based on a route indicated by the street-level map and routing data between an approximate midpoint of a tile comprising the edge and an approximate midpoint of an adjacent tile sharing the edge;
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;
identifying, …, a first set of the plurality of points of interest associated with the first set of the plurality of tiles;
determining, … responsive to a second input comprising a second total travel time less than the first total travel time, a second set of the plurality of tiles reachable from the first tile in up to the second total travel time by filtering the first set of the plurality of tiles to remove one or more tiles for which a corresponding travel time from the first tile is greater than the second total travel time; and
identifying, …, a second set of the plurality of points of interest associated with the second 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;
determining a subset of the plurality of geographical regions of relevance to a user;
pushing, to … the user, a subset of the plurality of tiles and a subset of the stored associations corresponding to the subset of the plurality of geographical regions, the …;
selecting, … based on an input comprising a user-selected location corresponding to a starting location within the subset of the plurality of geographical regions, a first tile associated with the starting location within the subset of the plurality of geographical regions and a second tile corresponding to a destination within the subset of 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 subset of the plurality of tiles, 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
user device comprising at least one processor of the one or more processors
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights