Status of Claims
1. This is a Final office action in response to communication received on 08/18/2023. Claims 1-11 are pending and examined herein.
Drawing Objections
2. The drawings are objected to because entire Figs. 6A-7E are not legible due to faint text in flowchart boxes. This may have been caused due to reproduction of colored figures/images in black and white. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-11 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. Next using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidances (hereinafter 2019 PEG) the rejection as follows has been applied.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-9 and 12-13 are a computer implemented method; claim 10 is a method; and claim 11 is a method. Thus, each claim 1-13, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1-13 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of distributing printed marketing media door to door, confirming that the marketing media was delivered or not, and creating a performance metric for deliverers which is certain methods of organizing human activity (but for its implementation in network based environment - which is considered further under prong two and step 2B analysis as set forth below).
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-13 at least are a first computing device comprising a display, transmission over a network to/from a second computing device, and capturing by the first computing device a picture and location via selectable indicia (claims 1, 10, 11), and storing the received data at the second computing device (additionally per claim 10); capturing location data with picture (claim 4); clickable map based on pictures associated with location and storing said pictures (claims 7-8). Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1A, 1B, and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device(s) merely sending/receiving data over a network, note receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Captured data image and GPS is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes captured and transmitted user data create a map using geotagged picture which depict proof of delivery of marketing material. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is a map that visually depicts that marketing media was indeed delivered (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as transmitting data via a network between devices however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of distributing printed marketing media door to door, confirming that the marketing media was delivered or not, and creating a performance metric for deliverers which is certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1-13, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of distributing printed marketing media door to door, confirming that the marketing media was delivered or not, and creating a performance metric for deliverers which is certain methods of organizing human activity - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here user's or deliverer’s data is received and transmitted over a network];
(ii) (a) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014), (b) Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53, (c) US 12,021,806 Col 14 lines 61-67 note “GPS module 235 determines the location of the device and provides this information for use in various applications (e.g., to telephone 238 for use in location-based dialing; to camera 243 as picture/video metadata; and to applications that provide location-based services such as weather widgets, local yellow page widgets, and map/navigation widgets)”, (d) JP 2014232416 A see pg. 12 of 26 “When the advertisement server 5 approves the scan data of the contract slip D, the advertisement server 5 requests the image forming apparatus 3 for distribution completion confirmation information certifying that the distribution work is completed. Upon receiving a request for distribution completion confirmation information from the advertisement server 5, the control unit 36 of the image forming apparatus 3 requests the distribution operator to provide distribution completion confirmation information. As the distribution completion confirmation information, for example, photograph data at the time of distribution work taken by the mobile communication terminal 4 and movement history information such as GPS (Global Positioning System) history information of the mobile communication terminal 4 can be considered”
Furthermore, regarding location of consumer mobile device, it is simply being gathered from what appears to be a generic built in component of consumer device (which examiner interprets from the state of the art as it is not described in the as-filed spec. of the instant application), nevertheless, in view of compact prosecution the Examiner provides evidence that it is well-known or well-understood, routine, conventional activity see the following publications:
- (a) Pub. No.: US 2010/0273452 paras. [0073] note "The location determination routine 94 is operable to determine a geographic location of the target device 14 using GPS sensors or any other conventional means of determining geographic location."; and [0091] note "In one aspect, a recovery module 116 may further include a parental control module. In such an aspect, the parental control module may allow for disablement of the wireless device at specific locations (e.g. school, church, etc.). Further, the parental control module may provide for a web-based interface to control at least a portion of data/voice interactions with specific wireless devices. For example, specific web content may be restricted and/or specific numbers may be blocked. Still further, the parental control module may allow for detection of whether specific locations have been visited. For example, the module may determine if the device (and presumably the child) visited a library or a mall after school, or if the child left the service coverage area. In another aspect, the parental control module may be used to remotely disable at least a portion of the functionalities of an associated wireless device."
- (b) Pub. No.: US 2009/0288012 note [0148] note "If at any time during the initialization of any of these transaction configurations a step fails, for example one party uses the conveyed transaction identifier with the transaction authority, but the authority has no record of the transaction, or the transaction is not in the correct pending state, or there are some other conditions on the transaction which cannot be met such as the transaction violating the conditions of parental controls put in place by the guardian of a user who is a minor, then the violations are stored at the transaction authority 102 for security and debugging purposes and appropriate messages are sent to the parties."; and [0298] note "The user's location can be determined by the system using one or more well-understood methods such as GPS, triangulation, or by determining if they are near parts of the system such as short range transmitter access points which have had their locations determined, either by some automated means such as global positioning system (GPS) or by having had its location entered into the system manually."
- (c) Pub. No.: US 2012/0101881 paras. [0254] note "In some implementations, the app may include an indication of the location (e.g., name of the merchant store, geographical location, information about the aisle within the merchant store, etc.) of the user, e.g., loll. The app may provide an indication of a pay amount due for the purchase of the product, e.g., 1012. In some implementations, the app may provide various options for the user to pay the amount for purchasing the product( s ). For example, the app may utilize the GPS coordinates to determine the merchant store within the user is present, and direct the user to a website of the merchant."; [0258] note "In some implementations, the app may provide the L-PROMO with the GPS location of the user. Based on the GPS location of the user, the L-PROMO may determine the context of the user (e.g., whether the user is in a store, doctor's office, hospital, postal service office, etc.). Based on the context, the user app may present the appropriate fields to the user, from which the user may select fields and/or field values to send as part of the purchase order transmission."
- (d) Pub. No.: US 2011/0029370 paras. [0060] note "Various techniques may be employed to reduce the probability of fraud in the reporting of presence at a store. In some embodiments, an assertion of presence at a store may be validated against various criteria such as the last known location of the mobile phone and the time since the last known location and/or error radius of the mobile phone (which in some embodiments may be required to be instantaneous and/ or received within a short time threshold, such as ten seconds). If it is determined that it is unlikely that the mobile phone traveled from the last known location since the time of the last report, the assertion may be rejected. In some embodiments, multiple sequential locational reports and/or assertions of presence in stores, and the times thereof, may be analyzed to determine whether it is plausible that the reports are accurate, and the assertion may be rejected if it is determined not to be plausible, e.g. if it requires a rapidity of transit that is infeasible, for example a velocity in excess of 80 miles per hour for over short (e.g. less than two hour) periods of time."; also see [0021]; [0030]-[0034]; and [0037].
- (e) Roeding Pub. No.: US 2011/0029370 Al [0021] note "determine where the consumers are based upon the locations of their mobile phones 101. Many mobile phones 101 are equipped with global positioning system (GPS) units 212 that provide precise location information. The cell phones can transmit this information to the system and the server can determine how close a consumer is to a store 301. The system can also determine if the consumer is within the store 301. If GPS is not available, various other location detection mechanisms can be used to determine the location of the consumer and distance 309 from the store 301"; [0027]-[0032]; [0037]
- (f) Pub. No.: US 20170323260 note “[0069] Thereafter, as shown in FIG. 17, when the truck driver presses a function button, such as a “location transmission start” proposed by the cargo tracking application according to an embodiment of the present invention, when cargo (or a container) starts to be transported, the location of the cargo may be tracked through the location of a portable terminal, such as the smart phone of a cargo owner.”
- (g) KR20040055201 note “In order to achieve another object of the present invention, the updating of the specific location information by the vehicle driver to the information providing server, the driver presses the user location information registration button of the GPS terminal at a predetermined position while the vehicle is driving. Information about the predetermined location is recorded on the smart card or the USB hard drive, and the driver inserts the smart card into the PC or connects the USB hard drive to the Internet to provide the information providing server. The information about the predetermined location is automatically updated by the database of the information providing server.” [similarly here a map is created using geotagged pictures and client device location information is obtained]; and
(iii) (a) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).", (b) Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755, (c) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 [similarly here interface and database/memory are utilized to initiate capturing data, storing said captured data, and ultimately displayed on a map].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Examiner’s Reason(s) For Withdrawal Of Prior Art Based Rejection(s)
4. The following prior art references were utilized,
(A)
Claims 1-2, and 4 were previoulsy rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al. (Pub. No.: JP2014232416A) referred to hereinafter as Kawaguchi, in view of Yasumura (Pub. No.: JP2006248634A), and Holman et al. (Pub. No.: US2015/0106195) referred to hereinafter as Holman.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi, in view of Yasumura, Holman, and NPL: Track-pod (https://web.archive.org/web/20220604170437/https://www.track-pod.com/features/ and https://web.archive.org/web/20220815092612/https://www.track-pod.com/ ).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi, in view of Yasumura, Holman, and Shanton et al. (Pub. No.: US2022/0044253) referred to hereinafter as Shanton.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi, in view of Yasumura, Holman, and Ciyin et al. (Pub. No.: WO2024/019198A1) referred to hereinafter as Ciyin.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Kawaguchi, in view of Yasumura, Holman, Shanton, and Ciyin.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Kawaguchi, in view of Yasumura, Holman, Track-pod, Shanton, and Ciyin.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Kawaguchi, in view of Yasumura, Holman, Track-pod, and Shanton;
the following were previously discovered
(B)
U Flyer & Door Hanger Distribution Program, https://www.runamplify.com/flyers/, https://web.archive.org/web/20200411004230/https://www.runamplify.com/fl yers/
V https://www.gpstrackingamerica.com/door-hanging-advertising-company-takes-advantage-gps-tracking/
W Power Direct - Front Door Marketing and Doorhanger Distribution, https://powerdirect.net/
the following were discovered while updating the search in response to the claim amendments filed 12/01/2025
(C)
Pub. No.: US 20170323260 note “[0069] Thereafter, as shown in FIG. 17, when the truck driver presses a function button, such as a “location transmission start” proposed by the cargo tracking application according to an embodiment of the present invention, when cargo (or a container) starts to be transported, the location of the cargo may be tracked through the location of a portable terminal, such as the smart phone of a cargo owner.”
KR20040055201 note “In order to achieve another object of the present invention, the updating of the specific location information by the vehicle driver to the information providing server, the driver presses the user location information registration button of the GPS terminal at a predetermined position while the vehicle is driving. Information about the predetermined location is recorded on the smart card or the USB hard drive, and the driver inserts the smart card into the PC or connects the USB hard drive to the Internet to provide the information providing server. The information about the predetermined location is automatically updated by the database of the information providing server.”
However, the above noted references, when considered singularly and in combination, neither allow to make a prima facie case of anticipation not obviousness.
Therefore, the claims appear to overcome the prior art of record.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
5. Regarding Objection (not Rejection, as the Applicant has cited to MPEP section which pertains to rejection), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Objection has been updated in view of replacement figures provided and the Examiner has provided reason as to what may have caused figures to become illegible and grainy.
The Applicant’s arguments lack particularity in terms at what point 35 USC 101 rejection transition to Prior Art based rejection due to lack of a proper heading. The Examiner using best guess notes that arguments against prior art begin on page 15 of the response filed 12/01/2025.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant is reminded that the analysis is based on 2019 PEG. The Applicant has failed to delineate their arguments properly in terms whether the arguments are against step 2A prong one, step 2A prong 2, and step 2B.
Contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, indeed under step 2A prong one the analysis is based on abstract recitation based on which the claim recitation invokes certain methods of organizing human activity. Next, under prong two, the claims as a whole is considered, but the Applicant fails to argue that particularly and appears to tie the analysis of prong two with prong one, which is improper.
Nevertheless, under prong two, when the claim is considered as a whole including the additional elements which is what the Applicant appears to be arguing (again using the best guess as the Applicant fails to delineate their arguments under proper sub-headings under 35 USC 101 arguments and appears to conflate prong one and prong two analysis), the additional elements are described at a high level of generality to facilitate the abstract idea, i.e. execute “apply it” instructions to gather data at an address and provide location data which is transmitted to another device which is generally linking to a technical environment such as network based communication environment e.g. Internet. As such, the claims when considered as a whole, note “viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of distributing printed marketing media door to door, confirming that the marketing media was delivered or not, and creating a performance metric for deliverers which is certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.”
Next, under step 2B or significantly more, only the additional elements both singularly and in-combination are to be evaluated. As already explained merely executing instruction by additional element(s) described at a high level of generality in a network based communication environment e.g. Internet to gather data fails to integrate. Similarly it also fail to provide significantly more and the examiner has provided that data gathering and outputting on a display by such devices is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional note as follows:
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here user's or deliverer’s captured and/or inputted data via a client device is received and transmitted over a network];
(ii) (a) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014), (b) Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53, (c) US 12,021,806 Col 14 lines 61-67 note “GPS module 235 determines the location of the device and provides this information for use in various applications (e.g., to telephone 238 for use in location-based dialing; to camera 243 as picture/video metadata; and to applications that provide location-based services such as weather widgets, local yellow page widgets, and map/navigation widgets)”, (d) JP 2014232416 A see pg. 12 of 26 “When the advertisement server 5 approves the scan data of the contract slip D, the advertisement server 5 requests the image forming apparatus 3 for distribution completion confirmation information certifying that the distribution work is completed. Upon receiving a request for distribution completion confirmation information from the advertisement server 5, the control unit 36 of the image forming apparatus 3 requests the distribution operator to provide distribution completion confirmation information. As the distribution completion confirmation information, for example, photograph data at the time of distribution work taken by the mobile communication terminal 4 and movement history information such as GPS (Global Positioning System) history information of the mobile communication terminal 4 can be considered”
Furthermore, regarding location of consumer mobile device, it is simply being gathered from what appears to be a generic built in component of consumer device (which examiner interprets from the state of the art as it is not described in the as-filed spec. of the instant application), nevertheless, in view of compact prosecution the Examiner provides evidence that it is well-known or well-understood, routine, conventional activity see the following publications:
- (a) Pub. No.: US 2010/0273452 paras. [0073] note "The location determination routine 94 is operable to determine a geographic location of the target device 14 using GPS sensors or any other conventional means of determining geographic location."; and [0091] note "In one aspect, a recovery module 116 may further include a parental control module. In such an aspect, the parental control module may allow for disablement of the wireless device at specific locations (e.g. school, church, etc.). Further, the parental control module may provide for a web-based interface to control at least a portion of data/voice interactions with specific wireless devices. For example, specific web content may be restricted and/or specific numbers may be blocked. Still further, the parental control module may allow for detection of whether specific locations have been visited. For example, the module may determine if the device (and presumably the child) visited a library or a mall after school, or if the child left the service coverage area. In another aspect, the parental control module may be used to remotely disable at least a portion of the functionalities of an associated wireless device."
- (b) Pub. No.: US 2009/0288012 note [0148] note "If at any time during the initialization of any of these transaction configurations a step fails, for example one party uses the conveyed transaction identifier with the transaction authority, but the authority has no record of the transaction, or the transaction is not in the correct pending state, or there are some other conditions on the transaction which cannot be met such as the transaction violating the conditions of parental controls put in place by the guardian of a user who is a minor, then the violations are stored at the transaction authority 102 for security and debugging purposes and appropriate messages are sent to the parties."; and [0298] note "The user's location can be determined by the system using one or more well-understood methods such as GPS, triangulation, or by determining if they are near parts of the system such as short range transmitter access points which have had their locations determined, either by some automated means such as global positioning system (GPS) or by having had its location entered into the system manually."
- (c) Pub. No.: US 2012/0101881 paras. [0254] note "In some implementations, the app may include an indication of the location (e.g., name of the merchant store, geographical location, information about the aisle within the merchant store, etc.) of the user, e.g., loll. The app may provide an indication of a pay amount due for the purchase of the product, e.g., 1012. In some implementations, the app may provide various options for the user to pay the amount for purchasing the product( s ). For example, the app may utilize the GPS coordinates to determine the merchant store within the user is present, and direct the user to a website of the merchant."; [0258] note "In some implementations, the app may provide the L-PROMO with the GPS location of the user. Based on the GPS location of the user, the L-PROMO may determine the context of the user (e.g., whether the user is in a store, doctor's office, hospital, postal service office, etc.). Based on the context, the user app may present the appropriate fields to the user, from which the user may select fields and/or field values to send as part of the purchase order transmission."
- (d) Pub. No.: US 2011/0029370 paras. [0060] note "Various techniques may be employed to reduce the probability of fraud in the reporting of presence at a store. In some embodiments, an assertion of presence at a store may be validated against various criteria such as the last known location of the mobile phone and the time since the last known location and/or error radius of the mobile phone (which in some embodiments may be required to be instantaneous and/ or received within a short time threshold, such as ten seconds). If it is determined that it is unlikely that the mobile phone traveled from the last known location since the time of the last report, the assertion may be rejected. In some embodiments, multiple sequential locational reports and/or assertions of presence in stores, and the times thereof, may be analyzed to determine whether it is plausible that the reports are accurate, and the assertion may be rejected if it is determined not to be plausible, e.g. if it requires a rapidity of transit that is infeasible, for example a velocity in excess of 80 miles per hour for over short (e.g. less than two hour) periods of time."; also see [0021]; [0030]-[0034]; and [0037].
- (e) Roeding Pub. No.: US 2011/0029370 Al [0021] note "determine where the consumers are based upon the locations of their mobile phones 101. Many mobile phones 101 are equipped with global positioning system (GPS) units 212 that provide precise location information. The cell phones can transmit this information to the system and the server can determine how close a consumer is to a store 301. The system can also determine if the consumer is within the store 301. If GPS is not available, various other location detection mechanisms can be used to determine the location of the consumer and distance 309 from the store 301"; [0027]-[0032]; [0037] [similarly here a map is created using geotagged pictures and client device location information is obtained]
- (f) Pub. No.: US 20170323260 note “[0069] Thereafter, as shown in FIG. 17, when the truck driver presses a function button, such as a “location transmission start” proposed by the cargo tracking application according to an embodiment of the present invention, when cargo (or a container) starts to be transported, the location of the cargo may be tracked through the location of a portable terminal, such as the smart phone of a cargo owner.”
- (g) KR20040055201 note “In order to achieve another object of the present invention, the updating of the specific location information by the vehicle driver to the information providing server, the driver presses the user location information registration button of the GPS terminal at a predetermined position while the vehicle is driving. Information about the predetermined location is recorded on the smart card or the USB hard drive, and the driver inserts the smart card into the PC or connects the USB hard drive to the Internet to provide the information providing server. The information about the predetermined location is automatically updated by the database of the information providing server.”; and
(iii) (a) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).", (b) Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755, (c) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 [similarly here interface and database/memory are utilized to initiate capturing data, storing said captured data, and ultimately displayed on a map].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Regarding 103, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the first limitation of claim 11 is being misinterpreted and indeed the primary reference namely Kawaguchi is capable of depicting a blank screen if no data is received. Thus, the Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Nevertheless, the Examiner has withdrawn the prior art based rejection in view reasons) as set forth in the Examiner’s Reason(s) For Withdrawal Of Prior Art Based Rejection(s) above.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution, at least note the following:
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 EST.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571)270-3948. 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.
/DIPEN M PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621