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 .
Drawings
The corrected drawing was received on 24 July 2026. The drawing is accepted and the outstanding objection is WITHDRAWN.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 14-17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements and thus fail to meet the requirement for “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” See 37 CFR 1.71(a). The Examiner finds that it would not be full, clear, or concise to one of ordinary skill in the art to discern the structure in which “replacing” of first data with that of second data is required, which yields an ambiguity in claim scope. The Examiner suggests that the claims be amended to expressly recite that the second data replaces the first data in one or more network site data sources in the network site storage system. See ¶ 0084. Accordingly, appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant particularly argues:
[A] human cannot adequately determine an accuracy score indicating a level of confidence that existing location data for a site is accurate due to the technical limitations and requirements involved in identifying such a level of confidence and how accuracy is measured, as described in the specification. Additionally, the determination of the accuracy score requires determination of a parcel match score as a measure of match between an existing address and a parcel address, which likewise cannot be readily identified in a human mind without technological assistance. This is further reinforced by the determination of the parcel match score requiring a determination of a string match score between the existing address and the parcel address. Furthermore, even if a human were able to approximate any of the claimed scores, humans are error prone and the use of human involvement can lead to a number of issues that are solved by the claim limitations as performed by specialized computing systems, for the reasons set forth in the present application.
Remarks, p. 20. The Examiner finds these arguments to be non-persuasive for the reasons set forth in the subject matter eligibility analysis below which supports the grounds for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. That is, the Applicant fails to assert let alone sufficiently establish that any of the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more.” In particular, the claims relate to the concept of intelligent traffic scheduling based on a deep reinforcement learning, which constitutes a “mental process” capable of being performed in a human mind or mentally with pen and paper. The judicial exception, i.e., abstract idea, is not integrated into a “practical application,” and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter? See MPEP 2106.03.
Yes: Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are directed to a process; Claims 13-18 are directed to a machine; and Claims 19 and 20 are directed to an article of manufacture. See 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception, namely, an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1.
Yes: Independent claim 1 recites the steps of “retrieving . . . existing location data,” “determining external location data” comprising a number of data-specific determining steps, “determining accuracy scores” comprising a number of data-specific match-score determining steps (e.g., “determining a string match score,” “determining . . . a threshold distance”) “validating,” and “automatically causing at least one mitigation action to be performed,” each of which, except for the “retrieving” step and the “automatically causing” step, amounts to data analysis and/or evaluation operations capable of being performed mentally by a person, and/or mentally with aid of pen and paper, and which are considered by the courts to be an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.III. As analyzed below with respect to “Step 2B,” the “retrieving” step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, while the “automatically causing” step amounts to merely appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05.I.A. Independent claim 13 and independent claim 19 recite substantially similar limitations and are, therefore, are properly deemed to recite an abstract idea.
Claim 2 merely requires “automatically determining alternate . . . data” while defining performance of the mitigation action as the step of “replacing” existing data with alternate data, which is recited at such a high-level of generality—under BRI—so as to require a step of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion capable of being processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claim 3 merely recites the step of comparing retrieved information to an accuracy-level threshold, which is an act of evaluating information that can be processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claim 4 merely recites the step of “replacing” existing data with alternate data—an evaluation/judgment concept capable of being practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claim 5 merely recites additional “determining,” “selecting,” and “automatically replacing”—which are acts of evaluating information that can be processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claim 6 merely substantially repeats steps of claim 1 while substituting alternate data for the existing data, which are recited at a high-level of generality that—under BRI—comprises steps of observation capable of being processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claim 7 merely recites additional “determining . . . data,” “determining an accuracy score,” and “validating”—which are acts of evaluating information that can be processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claim 8 merely recites additional “aggregating” and “determining”—which are acts of evaluating information that can be processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claims 10-12 merely require determining processes with respect to “match scores,” which are recited at a high-level of generality that—under BRI—comprises steps of observation, evaluating, judging, and/or opinion that could be processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claim 14 merely requires “automatically determin[ing] alternate . . . data” and the step of comparing retrieved information to an accuracy-level threshold, while defining performance of the mitigation action as the step of “replac[ing]” existing data with alternate data, which is recited at such a high-level of generality—under BRI—so as to require a step of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion capable of being processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claim 15 merely recites additional “determin[ing],” “select[ing],” and “automatically replac[ing]”—which are acts of evaluating information that can be processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claim 16 merely substantially repeats steps of claim 13 while substituting alternate data for the existing data, which are recited at a high-level of generality that—under BRI—comprises steps of observation capable of being processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claim 17 merely recites additional “determin[ing] . . . data,” “determin[ing] an accuracy score,” and “validat[ing]”—which are acts of evaluating information that can be processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claim 18 merely recites additional “aggregate[ing]” and “determin[ing]”—which are acts of evaluating information that can be processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Claim 20 merely requires “automatically determin[ing] alternate . . . data” and the step of comparing retrieved information to an accuracy-level threshold, while defining performance of the mitigation action as the step of “replac[ing]” existing data with alternate data, which is recited at such a high-level of generality—under BRI—so as to require a step of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion capable of being processed and practicably performed in the human mind—i.e., a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04.III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2.
No: Claim 1 recites no computer-related structure related to a site (i.e., potential service location), thereby failing to place any meaningful limitations on how any of these features function. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of location data validation concepts, and do not include any details of how, for example, such accuracy scoring and/or mitigation actions are technologically accomplished.
The additional element recited by the “retrieving” step is merely data gathering—recognized by the courts as “insignificant extra-solution activity”—thereby failing to “integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the non-specific mitigation action to be performed is recited at a high level of generality—thereby failing to “integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the limitations cannot be said to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application either by improving the functioning of a computer or technical field, or by applying the judicial exception with or by using a specific-puporse machine.
Regarding claim 13, the mere requirement to use a system comprising a processor to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Regarding claim 19, the mere use of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Id. Further, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-12, 14-18, and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, id., for reasons substantially similar to those given for their respective base claims.
Step 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05.
No: The additional elements noted above fail to amount to significantly more as they do not impose meaningful limits on claim 1, and as such are only nominally or tangentially related to the invention. The “retrieving” step amounts to a mere data gathering operation which is considered by the courts to not add a meaningful limitation to the method—as they are, at best—insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I). Further, the non-specific mitigation action to be performed merely amounts to appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality that fails to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05.I.A. As such, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Similarly, independent claims 13 and 19 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more for reasons substantially similar to those given for claim 1. Further, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-12, 14-18, and 20 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, id., for reasons substantially similar to those given for their respective base claims.
Accordingly, claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 19 and 20 are drawn to a “computer-readable storage medium” storing instructions. The Specification does not set forth a definition corresponding to the claim term. The Specification merely states that “[c]omputer storage media does not include a carrier wave or other propagated or modulated data signal.” ¶ 0095. Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2111.01), the claim as a whole covers a transitory signal, as such, does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP § 2106.01).
For these additional reasons, claims 19 and 20 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (See MPEP § 2106).
Examiner’s comment: A claim drawn to such a computer-readable storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101, for example, by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim term.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as set forth herein. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Garth D Richmond whose telephone number is (703)756-4559. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/GARTH D RICHMOND/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights