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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 12/31/2025. Claims 1, 5, 11, and 20 have been amended. Claims 3, and 9 have been previously cancelled. Claims 21-22 have been previously added. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-22 are currently pending.
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 1-2, 4-8, and 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining a map, obtaining first information that there is an association relationship between a first and second event, storing the first information as data of a map, predict a status of the second event, update the status of the second event, generate a map update packet and send the map update packet.
The limitations of obtaining a map, obtaining first information that there is an association relationship between a first and second event, storing the first information as data of a map, predict a status of the second event, update the status of the second event, and generate a map update packet, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor and a memory,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor and a memory” language, “obtaining, storing, predicting, and generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally understanding and memorizing a relationship between a first and a second event using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, predicting a future state of an event based on said data, and generating a map update. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements, a processor and a memory. Said processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation of sending the map update packet to the side apparatus, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. The sending step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. general means of sending the result or the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor and a memory to perform the recited steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of send the map update packet is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4-8,10-19, and 21-22 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2, 4-8,10-19, and 21-22 are part of the mental process and don’t recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 4-8,10-19, and 21-22 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that the data transmission and tile specific update operations cannot reasonably be performed by the human mind, but instead require a computing apparatus capable of generating structured data packets, transmitting the packets over a network, and applying the packet contents to update stored map data, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. With respect to the data transmission step, the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities. The sending step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. general means of sending the result or the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. With respect to the tile specific update operations limitation, a user can divide a map into a plurality of sections and update it using pen and paper which falls under the mental process aspect.
With respect to applicant’s argument that provides a technological improvement in the functioning of computer systems for map data processing in a network environment, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The claims are not directed to an improvement of how a specific computer can create and transmit data packets over a network. The claims take an advantage of a well-known computer technology of creating and sending data packets, i.e. the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks that the claims are patent- eligible for reciting unconventional elements under step 2B, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. 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.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”) MPEP 2106.05. As recited above in the rejection, the additional elements of using a processor and a memory to perform the recited steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the additional limitation of send the map update packet is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669