DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 6/16/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-17 have been amended and claim 20 has been added new.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims do not recite an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims specifically recite determining office/work locations for human users by determining commute times and carbon emissions for those human users based on the human user locations, which specifically recites managing where humans will / should travel, which is Organizing Human Activity. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims improve the GUI technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner asserts that using a GUI and an API does not improve the technology because it is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). The Applicant’s claims are using general purpose computer components to implement the abstract idea, where the GUI/API/interface is generically recited as displaying the results as shown in claims 1, 7, and 13. The claims recite generic use of GUI and interfaces, where Applicant does not claim any sort of arrangement for display, but rather recites generic display of a heatmap with a map backdrop, which is just displaying what type of data is being displayed. Displaying location data on a map does not improve the functioning of the GUI itself, but rather narrows the abstract idea by defining what the data is. Generic use and display of data on a GUI does not make the claims eligible (See MPEP 2106.05). Further see Applicant’s Figure 1 and related text. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the GUI is improved, but does not state how the GUI itself is actually improved. The Examiner again asserts running an analysis on a general purpose computer does not make the claims eligible and Applicant’s claims recite no specific technical features of the interfaces other than generic use (See MPEP 2106.05). Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite generic use of GUI’s and API’s recited at such a high level of generality that they merely add the words apply it with the judicial exception. Displaying location data on a map does not improve the functioning of the GUI itself, but rather narrows the abstract idea by defining what the data is. See Applicant’s Figure 1 and related text. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the August 4, 2025 memo, the Examiner has not over simplified the claims, but rather has specifically identified and provided reasoning as to why the additional elements do not make the claims eligible. Please see response above and rejection below. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that a heatmap generating different colors based on the analysis displayed with additional location based information defines what data is being displayed on the GUI and narrows the abstract idea. The Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05 which states “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101"). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter”, where a narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are related to Core Wireless. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Core Wireless involved how the data was being displayed on the GUI, which is different from Applicant’s claims which define what is being displayed on the GUI. Applicant is merely defining what kind of data is being displayed on the interface and how it is displayed on the interface, which is only done for human interpretation and does not actually improve or change how the interface functions. Applicant’s claims are merely using the interfaces (e.g. general purpose computer component) for implementing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims amount to significantly more. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner points to Page 2 of the McRO-Bascom Memo from December 2016, "The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation "that improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process." The Applicants’ claims are geared toward making recommendations about where humans should commute to work for commute time and emission based optimization based on availability, where these techniques are merely being applied/calculated in a computing environment. Simply applying these known concepts to a specific technical environment (e.g. the computers/GUIs) does not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not solve a problem rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the functioning of the computer itself because it is merely making a determination based on rules and/or mathematical relationships to output to a user. The Applicant’s claimed limitations do not appear to bring about any improvement in the operation or functioning of a computer per se, or to improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer (see page 2 of the McRo-Bascom memo). The solution appears to be more of a business-driven solution rather than a technical one. In addition, McRO had no evidence that the process previously used by animators is the same as the process required by the claims. The Applicant’s claimed limitations and originally filed specification provide no evidence that the claimed process/functions are any different than what would be done without a computer, where there are no adjustments to the mental process to accommodate implementation by computers. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-5 are directed toward a process, claims 13-17 are directed toward a product, and claims 7-11 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward A method for improved, dynamic graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for distance analytics visualization, the method implemented by an analysis system and comprising: obtaining, via one or more communication networks and a first application programming interface (API) hosted by a first server, first geographic locations satisfying one or more received parameters; receiving, via the communication networks, from a user device, and via a generated first GUI provided to the user device for display on a display device of the user device, selections from a list generated based on the first geographic locations and graphically presented via the first GUI; querying, via the communication networks, a second API hosted by a second server to determine, based on a plurality of stored addresses, a plurality of first travel times to a current location and a plurality of second travel times to each of a subset of the first geographic locations corresponding to the selections; generating, and outputting via the communication networks to the user device for display on the display device of the user device, a second GUI comprising a ranking of the subset of the first geographic locations and a heat map comprising selectable indications of each of the subset of the first geographic locations and a graphical representation of a density determined based on the stored addresses, wherein the ranking is generated based on the second travel times and the heat map includes different colors representing relative density and a geographic map as a backdrop; and in response to a received selection of one of the selectable indications, from an input device of the user device via the second GUI and the communication networks, dynamically updating via the communication networks the second GUI displayed on the display device of the user device to include: salience based on the received selection, wherein the salience highlights a location on the geographic map for one of the first geographic locations corresponding to the selected one of the selectable indications; and a visualization generated based on, and graphically illustrating, first and second time distributions generated based on the first and second travel times, respectively, for the one of the first geographic locations, wherein the visualization is updated in real-time and is disposed proximate the heatmap on the dashboard GUI (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.05). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing user locations and office addresses to determine commute times and generating alternative locations for users to go to work with the purpose of reducing carbon emissions and commute times by recommending new office locations based on availability and heatmap determinations, which is managing how humans interact for commercial purposes.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “dynamic graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for; implemented by an analysis system and comprising (claim 1)”; “a relocation analysis system, comprising memory having instructions stored thereon; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the stored instructions to (claim 7)”; “a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for; comprising executable code that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the processors to (claim 13)”; “via one or more communication networks and a first application programming interface (API) hosted by a first server, via the communication networks, from a user device, and via a generated first GUI provided to the user device for display on a display device of the user device, presented via the first GUI; via the communication networks, a second API hosted by a second server to via the communication networks to the user device for display on the display device of the user device, a second GUI comprising, from an input device of the user device via the second GUI and the communication networks, via the communication networks the second GUI displayed on the display device of the user device to; on the dashboard GUI (claims 1, 7, and 13)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 further narrow the abstract idea and present no additional elements which would integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed limitations merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05). The recited “via the communication networks and using the maps platform API hosted by the maps platform server (claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17)” and “via the communication networks the dashboard GUI displayed on the display device of the enterprise device (claims 2-3, 8-9, 11, 14-15, and 17)”, which are addressed by the independent claims and do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05) and are recited at such a high level of generality.
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05). Further, method; System; and Product Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 recite “dynamic graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for; implemented by an analysis system and comprising (claim 1)”; “a relocation analysis system, comprising memory having instructions stored thereon; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the stored instructions to (claim 7)”; “a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for; comprising executable code that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the processors to (claim 13)”; “via one or more communication networks and a first application programming interface (API) hosted by a first server, via the communication networks, from a user device, and via a generated first GUI provided to the user device for display on a display device of the user device, presented via the first GUI; via the communication networks, a second API hosted by a second server to via the communication networks to the user device for display on the display device of the user device, a second GUI comprising, from an input device of the user device via the second GUI and the communication networks, via the communication networks the second GUI displayed on the display device of the user device to; on the dashboard GUI (claims 1, 7, and 13)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0016-0021 and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and present no additional elements that provide significantly more. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. The recited “via the communication networks and using the maps platform API hosted by the maps platform server (claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17)” and “via the communication networks the dashboard GUI displayed on the display device of the enterprise device (claims 2-3, 8-9, 11, 14-15, and 17)”, which are addressed by the independent claims and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 disclose a system, product and method for analyzing user locations and office addresses to determine commute times and generating alternative locations for users to go to work with the purpose of reducing carbon emissions and commute times by recommending new office locations based on availability and heatmap determinations with different interfaces being generated for different users based on real location availability.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Schmelzer et al. (US 2021/0010816 A1) – which discloses improving commute scores for commuters by determining availability of resources to make recommendations.
Shah et al. (US 2011/0087608 A1) – which discloses locating specific properties for users to utilize.
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17, such as analyzing user locations and office addresses to determine commute times and generating alternative locations for users to go to with the purpose of reducing carbon emissions and commute times by recommending new office locations based on availability and heatmap determinations with different interfaces being generated for different users based on availability and density. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “A method for improved, dynamic graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for distance analytics visualization, the method implemented by an analysis system and comprising: obtaining, via one or more communication networks and a first application programming interface (API) hosted by a first server, first geographic locations satisfying one or more received parameters; receiving, via the communication networks, from a user device, and via a generated first GUI provided to the user device for display on a display device of the user device, selections from a list generated based on the first geographic locations and graphically presented via the first GUI; querying, via the communication networks, a second API hosted by a second server to determine, based on a plurality of stored addresses, a plurality of first travel times to a current location and a plurality of second travel times to each of a subset of the first geographic locations corresponding to the selections; generating, and outputting via the communication networks to the user device for display on the display device of the user device, a second GUI comprising a ranking of the subset of the first geographic locations and a heat map comprising selectable indications of each of the subset of the first geographic locations and a graphical representation of a density determined based on the stored addresses, wherein the ranking is generated based on the second travel times and the heat map includes different colors representing relative density and a geographic map as a backdrop; and in response to a received selection of one of the selectable indications, from an input device of the user device via the second GUI and the communication networks, dynamically updating via the communication networks the second GUI displayed on the display device of the user device to include: salience based on the received selection, wherein the salience highlights a location on the geographic map for one of the first geographic locations corresponding to the selected one of the selectable indications; and a visualization generated based on, and graphically illustrating, first and second time distributions generated based on the first and second travel times, respectively, for the one of the first geographic locations, wherein the visualization is updated in real-time and is disposed proximate the heatmap on the dashboard GUI (as required by independent claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17)”, thus rendering claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 as allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights