DETAILED ACTION
This in reference to communication received 24 July 2025. Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 12 and 15 – 19 are pending for examination. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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, 6 – 12 and 15 – 19 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.
Independent claim 1, representative of claims 10 and 19, in part is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites invention directed to calculating a valuation of a potential-customer for plurality of merchants including at-least a first-merchant and a second-merchant
To generate a valuation of the customer, customer profile information associated with the customer is accessed to determine their preference for a first-merchant, plurality of merchant data are then accessed and analyzed to identify a relationship of the first-merchant and at least a second-merchant based upon their associated data. Customer valuation is calculated based upon relationship or preferences between the customer and each of the first-merchant and the second-merchant, and calculated valuation is provided to either the first-merchant or the second-merchant. These limitations describe marketing/sales/advertising activities. Accessing the customer profile data and merchant data (such as from a file in a filing cabinet), determining the relationships between the merchants, and calculating a valuation as claimed would be part of marketing research. Causing presentation of the valuation would be the marketing team (or person) providing, such as a visual presentation, the valuation information to the marketing team’s client (the first or second merchant).
In addition, when it is determined that the customer has changed their location (e.g., based upon customer’s travel habits, customer is on the move e.g., GPS coordinates are changing), valuation of the customer is recalculated based upon a generated paths withing a place graph, and recalculated customer valuation is presented to the first-merchant or the second merchant. Generating the place graph and paths within the place graph (which can be done with pen and paper) as claimed would also be part of the marketing research where paths can be calculated within the graph that reflects the customer’s local tastes. The step of recalculating the valuation is also a marketing activity since this provides updated values to the merchant and valuation is used in determining how much to spend in advertising, for example. Causing presentation of the recalculated valuation to the first or second merchant would be presenting the final result, the valuation information, to the marketing team’s client (the first-merchant or the second-merchant). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and is not patent eligible.
Represented claims 10 and 19, which do recite statutory categories (machine, product of manufacture, for example), the same analysis as above applies to these claims since the method steps are the same. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These claims add the generic computer components (additional elements) of a system comprising one or more hardware processors and a memory (claim 10), and a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by a processor of a machine cause the machine to perform the method addressed above (claim 19).
The processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
When taken as an ordered combination, nothing is added that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. When viewed as a whole, the marketing activities amount to instructions applied using generic computer components.
As for dependent claims 2 – 3, 6 – 9, 11 – 12 and 15 – 18, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of determination of the relationship between the first-merchant and the second-merchant will be based upon the location characteristics and product characteristics associated with the first-merchant (preference of the customer) and the second-merchant, defining what customer data will be considered for generation of place-graph, and what information will be identified on the place-graph, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of organizing certain methods of human activity related to advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Terminal Disclaimer
Upon further review of the Application Folder, applicant had filed a Terminal Disclaimer 14 August 2025 and processed by the office on 15 August 2024 to overcome the Double Patenting Rejection. Therefore, Double Patenting Rejection is not cited in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 because, the amended claimed invention provides a concrete technical improvement to the operation of location-based customer valuation and merchant bidding systems by leveraging real-time GPS-based location detection, dynamic graph generation, and immediate valuation recalculation in response to changes in a customer's location which results in delivering accurate, context-aware, and up-to-date customer valuations, and, series of technological steps are not generic or abstract, but instead represent a practical application of advanced computing and data processing techniques to solve a technical problem in the field of location-based services, is acknowledged and considered.
However, upon further review, it is deemed that the amended invention is not eligible for patent under 35 USC 101, and responded to in the Rejection under 35 USC 101 section.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iannace et al. US Publication 2019/0197563 teaches and method for providing merchant offers to customer mobile device calculating proximity-sensitivity score based on the distance between the customer and location of the merchants.
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 Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571.270.7537. 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.
/NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
October 8, 2025