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
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed8/25/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/25/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “While the claims involve a process for providing relocation recommendations, they are not directed to an abstract idea but rather to a specific technological improvement in interactive digital search systems for location-based personalization… Even if arguendo the claims recite an abstract idea under Prong 1, they integrate any such idea into a practical application under Step 2A,Prong 2. The claims recite an ordered combination of steps that address a specific problem in prior art relocation search tools: the inefficiency of static or keyword-based searches that overwhelm users with irrelevant results or require manual attribute specification. By iteratively building references from displayed examples (derived from an initial query), generating a correlation-based ranked attribute list (e.g., via evaluation of correlations across references, as in claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17), and using user-selected priorities for matching (e.g., via weighted averages or thresholds, as in claims 4-5, 11-12, 18-19), the claims provide a technological improvement in personalization and computational efficiency. This reduces search iterations, mitigates information overload in large location datasets, and enables more accurate, user-driven recommendations-reflecting an improvement to computer functionality itself, as in *Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.*, 822F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The additional elements (e.g., causing display of examples and candidates, potentially as text lists or heatmaps per claims 7 and 14) are not generic but integral to this interactive flow, imposing meaningful limits beyond generally linking to a technological environment. Under Step 2B, the claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The specific sequence-starting with query-based example display for reference selection, followed by correlation-derived attribute ranking for priority selection, and priority-based matching/display-is unconventional and not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. This is evidenced by the lack of such features in the cited prior art (Ferries, discussed below) and aligns with inventive concepts found eligible in *Berkheimer v. HP Inc.*, 881F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claims do not preempt basic ideas but claim a particular solution.”, (see remarks , pg. 2-3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for searching for relocation candidates for an individual, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as the claims receive a request to provide relocation candidates based on an initial search for example is how two individuals can communicate with one another seeking assistance to provide relocation recommendations, while the other user assisting looking through database of potential options based on reference points provided by the seeking user, then after performing a search, the seeking user is provided with the options that have been put together. The computing elements such as “display of claim 1; device, processor, display of claim 8; computer-readable media, processors, display of claim 15” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103: Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/25/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for searching for relocation candidates for an individual.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “receiving a request to provide relocation candidates based on an initial search query; causing [...] of example locations that match the initial search query; adding one or more selected locations from the example locations to a list of reference locations; generating a correlation list of ranked attributes based on the list of reference locations; receiving one or more priority attributes selected from the correlation list of ranked attributes; and causing [...] of the relocation candidates based on matching the one or more priority attributes to a plurality of potential locations” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (display of claim 1; device, processor, display of claim 8; computer-readable media, processors, display of claim 15) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (display of claim 1; device, processor, display of claim 8; computer-readable media, processors, display of claim 15). The display of claim 1; device, processor, display of claim 8; computer-readable media, processors, display of claim 15, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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 claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the display of claim 7 and 14; device in claims 9-14; computer-readable media in claims 16-20; heatmap in claims 7 and 14, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights