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
Claims 63, 70, and 77 are amended. Claims 63-82 filed October 22, 2025 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 63-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 63-69 are directed to a system, claims 70-76 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media, and claims 77-82 are directed to a method, all of which are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 63, 70, and 77 recite an abstract idea of geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce.
The independent claims 63, 70, and 77 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
…
…
configure a frequency with which to determine a current location of…;
determine a first location of a… at a first time;
determine a second location of the… at a second time, wherein an amount of time between the first time and the second time satisfies the configured frequency;
compute a distance traveled between the first location and the second location;
and in response to the distance traveled exceeding a predetermined distance threshold:
identify one or more rules associated with the second location;
and monitor compliance of the one or more rules based on information received from at least one of the… or an individual associated with…
7. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce with generally recited computer elements such as a memory, processor, and mobile unit, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, memory, and mobile unit to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
10. Regarding dependent claims 64-65, 71-72, and 78, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claims 66-68, 73-75, and 80-82, although there is a generally recited processor, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Double Patenting
13. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
14. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
15. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
16. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
17. Claims 63-82 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-31 of U.S. Patent 11,282,090 and claims 34-63 of U.S. Patent 10,339,536 and claims 16-33 of U.S. Patent 10,832,256 and claims 63-82 of U.S. Patent 11,615,427. In fact, the ‘090, ‘536, ‘256, and ‘427 patents are more detailed and more specific and encompasses almost all of the elements of the broader, current ‘660 application as seen below.
18. This is an obviousness nonstatutory double patenting rejection because although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations from the present application and U.S. Patents 11,282,090, 10,339,536, 10,832,256, and 11,615,427 above are significantly similar and the claimed features seem to be identical with various obvious alternate methods. The omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375. For these reasons, claims 63-82 of the instant application are not identical to claims 12-31 of U.S. Patent 11,282,090 and claims 34-63 of U.S. Patent 10,339,536 and claims 16-33 of U.S. Patent 10,832,256 and claims 63-82 of U.S. Patent 11,615,427, but they are not patentably distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
20. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
21. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
22. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
23. Claims 63-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonhomme (US 2016/0003627) in view of Baldassano (US 2015/0242861) and Koen (US 2008/0094256).
24. Re Claims 63, 70, 77: Bonhomme discloses comprising:
a memory having computer-readable instructions stored thereon (see [0012] memory);
and a processor that executes the computer-readable instructions to (see [0012] processor):
determine a first location of a mobile unit at a first time (see [0022], Fig. 5 group of stopping locations);
determine a second location of the mobile unit at a second time, wherein an amount of time between the first time and the second time satisfies the configured frequency (see [0022], Fig. 5 group of stopping locations);
compute a distance traveled between the first location and the second location (see [0017] distance between two nodes above a threshold, [0025] within a limit distance of any other node);
and in response to the distance traveled exceeding a predetermined distance threshold (see [0017] distance between two nodes above a threshold, [0025] within a limit distance of any other node):
identify one or more rules associated with the second location (see [0016] geofences delineate regions with distinct speed limits or legal rules, safety rules, insurance rule, or other appropriate rules).
However, Bonhomme fails to explicitly disclose the following. Meanwhile, Baldassano teaches:
and monitor compliance of the one or more rules based on information received from at least one of the mobile unit or an individual associated with the mobile unit (see [0029], Fig. 2 mobile device or any communication device used to assist user with compliance with set of regulations).
From the teaching of Baldassano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bonhomme’s automatic geofence determination with Baldassano’s teaching of compliance in order for “… assisting a user with compliance with a set of regulations… (see Baldassano Abstract).”
However, Bonhomme and Baldassano fail to explicitly disclose the following. Meanwhile, Koen teaches:
configure a frequency with which to determine a current location of a mobile unit (see [0044] configuration parameter may specify frequency).
From the teaching of Koen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bonhomme’s automatic geofence determination with Baldassano’s teaching of compliance in order and further with Koen’s teaching of frequency for “… facilitating for GPS-based asset tracking… (see Koen Abstract).”
25. Re Claims 64, 71: Bonhomme discloses wherein the one or more rules are based on a role of the individual (see [0016] insurance rules could be specific to each individual).
26. Re Claims 65, 72, 78: Bonhomme discloses wherein each of the one or more rules is associated with a valid time period comprising a start time and an end time within which the each of the one or more rules is to be complied with (see [0023] start and stop locations, start trip and end trip).
27. Re Claims 66, 73, 79: However, Bonhomme fails to explicitly disclose the following. Meanwhile, Baldassano teaches wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to:
identify a rule from the one or more rules that is not in compliance;
determine whether the valid time period associated with the rule has passed or not;
and in response to determining that the valid time period associated with the rule has passed, generate an alert indicating non-compliance of the rule (see [0072] alerts).
From the teaching of Baldassano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bonhomme’s automatic geofence determination with Baldassano’s teaching of compliance in order for “… assisting a user with compliance with a set of regulations… (see Baldassano Abstract).”
28. Re Claims 67, 74, 80: However, Bonhomme fails to explicitly disclose the following. Meanwhile, Baldassano teaches wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to:
identify a rule from the one or more rules that is not in compliance;
determine whether the valid time period associated with the rule has passed or not;
in response to determining that the valid time period associated with the rule has not passed, determine whether the rule is within a warning period; and
in response to determining that the rule is within the warning period, generate a warning requesting compliance of the rule (see [0072] alerts).
From the teaching of Baldassano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bonhomme’s automatic geofence determination with Baldassano’s teaching of compliance in order for “… assisting a user with compliance with a set of regulations… (see Baldassano Abstract).”
29. Re Claims 68, 75, 81: However, Bonhomme fails to explicitly disclose the following. Meanwhile, Baldassano teaches wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to:
identify a rule from the one or more rules that is not in compliance;
determine whether the valid time period associated with the rule has passed or not;
in response to determining that the valid time period associated with the rule has not passed, determine whether the rule is within a warning period; and
in response to determining that the rule is not within the warning period, continue monitoring for compliance of the rule (see [0032] regularly monitor for compliance).
From the teaching of Baldassano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bonhomme’s automatic geofence determination with Baldassano’s teaching of compliance in order for “… assisting a user with compliance with a set of regulations… (see Baldassano Abstract).”
30. Re Claims 69, 76, 82: However, Bonhomme fails to explicitly disclose the following. Meanwhile, Baldassano teaches wherein to monitor compliance of a rule of the one or more rules, the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to:
receive an activity from the individual, the activity having a start time and an end time;
determine that the activity satisfies the rule;
determine that the start time and the end time of the activity fall within a valid time period associated with the rule; and
designate the rule as satisfying compliance in response to determining that the activity satisfies the rule and the start time and the end time fall within the valid time period (see [0057] is within compliance).
From the teaching of Baldassano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bonhomme’s automatic geofence determination with Baldassano’s teaching of compliance in order for “… assisting a user with compliance with a set of regulations… (see Baldassano Abstract).”
Examiner Notes
31. The Examiner suggests filing a terminal disclaimer to obviate the double patenting rejection. The Examiner suggests expounding upon what a mobile unit could be. The Examiner suggests incorporating claims 66 (dependent on 65) and 69 together into the independent claims. The Examiner suggests clearly defining what the rules are.
32. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
Response to Arguments
33. Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/25 have been fully considered and are not found to be convincing. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the arguments are moot as they pertain to new claim amendments, which have been addressed by the prior art above.
a) Argument #1: Claims do not recite a judicial exception because it is not directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” and therefore not an abstract idea
34. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims are related to geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce, which would fall under certain methods of organizing human activity of commercial or legal interactions. Purchasing items using a gift card is a commercial interaction. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Geolocation compliance of a mobile workforce is a form of marketing or sales activity or behavior, and is therefore an abstract idea.
b) Argument #2: Applicant argues that this is an improvement in technology
35. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to improving the functioning of the computer/technology/technical field, the claims recite the additional elements of memory, processor, and mobile unit, and they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore are merely using computer processing components for geolocation compliance for a mobile workplace. After further review of the Specification, there is no disclosure of technical enhancements to any of the computing components, as in multiple instances of the Specification it discloses generally recited elements. Interpreting the claims in view of the Specification, the claims recite the judicial exception are mere instructions to apply the exception of geolocation compliance for a mobile workforce (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements recited above do not recite and are not directed to any elements or functions that improve underlying technology.
36. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), it states: “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).”
37. Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., the additional elements of memory, processor, and mobile unit that are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to business support regarding tasks. The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., geolocation compliance for a mobile workforce, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application either by improvement to a computer/technology/technical field.
38. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. Claims are directed to an abstract idea of geolocation compliance for a mobile workforce. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, the Specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems or technology. Applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
c) Argument #3: Applicant argues that the claim elements are significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B
39. Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claims 63, 70, and 77 are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
40. Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
41. Here the only additional elements recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 beyond the abstract idea are: a memory, processor, and mobile unit, i.e., generic computer components. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
42. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of the independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
43. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Romsaiyud (Simulation of the Adaptive Multivariate Exploration for Routes Guidance, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
44. 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).
45. 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.
46. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
47. 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.
48. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
49. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627