DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/5/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Applicant claims priority to provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63/485,728, filed 2/17/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 7/3/2024 were previously considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 2/02/2026, have been entered. Claims 1, 14, 18, and 21 have been amended. Claim 27 is new. Claims 2-13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22-26 have been canceled. Claims 1, 14, 18, 21, and 27 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Interview
Examiner invites the representative of this application to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to expedite prosecution of this application.
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, 14, 18, 21, and 27 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) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method as claimed in claims 1, 21, and 27, are directed to a process, the system, as claimed in claim 14, is directed to a machine, and the non-transitory computer readable medium, as claimed in claim 18, is directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
establishing a communication channel between a first and a second engaged in a temporary location sharing relationship associated with a time and a physical location associated with an emergency;
receiving via the communication channel, the time and the location;
in response to a detection of a current time within a proximity of the time:
providing a first temporary location data request to the first to receive first location data within a first time window encompassing the time and based on a first distance between the first and the physical location, wherein the first temporary location data request triggers the first to temporarily record and transmit the first location data during the first time window,
providing a second temporary location data request to the second to receive second location data within a second time window encompassing the time and based on a second distance between the second and the physical location, wherein the second temporary location data request triggers the second to temporarily record and transmit the second location data during the second time window,
temporarily providing during the first time window, the first location data, without first metadata associated with the first, to the second,
temporarily providing during the second time window, the second location data, without second metadata associated with the second, to the first;
detecting a location anomaly based on at least one of a first time threshold, a distance between the first location data and the second location data, or an absence of a user input within a second time threshold; and
responsive to detecting the location anomaly, activating the emergency.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “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).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because establishing a communication channel between entities to temporally provide location data and detect anomalies is considered managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 14 and 18 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 14 and 18 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
establishing, by one or more processors, a communication channel between a first mobile device and a second mobile device engaged in a temporary location sharing relationship associated with a time and a physical location associated with an emergency tower;
receiving, by the one or more processors and via the communication channel, the time and the location;
in response to a detection of a current time within a proximity of the time:
providing, by the one or more processors, a first temporary location data request to the first mobile device to receive first location data within a first time window encompassing the time and based on a first distance between the first mobile device and the physical location, wherein the first temporary location data request triggers the first mobile device to temporarily record and transmit the first location data during the first time window,
providing, by the one or more processors, a second temporary location data request to the second mobile device to receive second location data within a second time window encompassing the time and based on a second distance between the second mobile device and the physical location, wherein the second temporary location data request triggers the second mobile device to temporarily record and transmit the second location data during the second time window,
temporarily providing, by the one or more processors and during the first time window, the first location data, without first metadata associated with the first mobile device, to the second mobile device,
temporarily providing, by the one or more processors and during the second time window, the second location data, without second metadata associated with the second mobile device, to the first mobile device;
detecting, by the one or more processors, a location anomaly based on at least one of a first time threshold, a distance between the first location data and the second location data, or an absence of a user input within a second time threshold; and
responsive to detecting the location anomaly, activating, by the one or more processors, the emergency tower.
Independent claims 14 and 18 recite the additional elements of “memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory” and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions,” and “one or more processors” in addition to the additional elements already addressed in the rejection for independent claim 1.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“by one or more processors”, “mobile devices”, “an emergency tower physically located at the physical location”, “memory”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, providing/transmitting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 18, and 18 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0038]- [0065], [0126], [0201], and [0207]). Further, the Specification recites an emergency tower as a generic “connected safety device” (see [0126], [0201], [0207]) at a high level of generality without further description. The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving and transmitting/providing steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 14, and 18 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 14, and 18, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 14, and 18 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. Further, the “emergency tower” is recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 14, and 18 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 14, and 18 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1, 14, and 18 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 21
Dependent claim(s) 21, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 21 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1.
Claim 21 sets forth:
responsive to an interaction with at least one of: the first mobile device or the second mobile device, providing to the emergency tower, by the one or more processors, the first location data and the second location data.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of establishing a communication channel between entities to temporally provide location data and detect anomalies. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1.
Thus, dependent claim 21 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 27
Dependent claim(s) 27 sets forth:
wherein the temporary location sharing relationship is associated with data item, and the computer-implemented method further comprises: receiving, through a browsing interface screen, an item selection input corresponding to the data item, wherein (i) the data item comprises one or more visible attributes and one or more hidden attributes and (ii) one of the one or more hidden attributes identifies a locking threshold for the data item, wherein the locking threshold represents a predetermined maximum sale price of the data item, and wherein the one or more visible attributes comprise a locking indicator attribute corresponding to the locking threshold and visually indicating that the data item is associated with the locking threshold without identifying the predetermined maximum sale price of the locking threshold.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of establishing a communication channel between entities to temporally provide location data and detect anomalies. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a browsing interface screen,” these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0038]- [0065] indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claim 27 is also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 10-15 of the Remarks filed 2/5/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues on pages 10-13 that the claims are eligible over Step 2A, prong 1 as the claims recite improvements to location tracking technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that in Prong One examiner 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. As noted on page 11 of the remarks, the amended claims recite a location tracking service that temporarily exchanges anonymous location data between entities and triggers an emergency in the event of an anomaly. While the claims recite additional elements such as “mobile devices” and an emergency “tower”, these additional elements are analyzed in step 2A, prong two. Establishing a communication channel between entities to temporally provide location data and detect anomalies is considered managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., facilitating communication between individuals). Despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe abstract idea(s) for those reasons set forth previously.
Applicant argues on pages 13-16 that the amended claim integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner agrees that the amended limitations including one or more processors, a first member device, a second member device, and an emergency tower do not fall within the abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees that these elements as currently claimed impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As claimed, these elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facility the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of processors and devices (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0038]- [0065]) and a brief description of an emergency tower ([0126], [0201], and [0207]). If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, or a combination of additional elements that improves the technological field a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that eh improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to one or more processors, a first member device, a second member device, and/or an emergency tower, and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of establishing a communication channel between entities to temporally provide location data and detect anomalies (see Fig. 8 and paragraphs [0179]-[0192] disclosing users manually selecting inputs to “trigger” location sharing). Therefore, as currently claimed, unlike the argued paragraphs of [0126]-[0127], the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process.
The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is akin to ineligible decisions such as Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible), or, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions). The alleged improvement by Applicant is at best a bare assertion of an improvement sans sufficient detail to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement to the technical field.
Additionally, there is no indication from either the claims or the specification that the invention seeks to modify conventional operation of any such technology as that in DDR Holdings. Here again, the Examiner emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the improvements manifested by the claimed invention are improvements to the abstract idea itself, not the computer or another technology or technical field.
As currently claimed, the character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient disclosure or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant argues on page 15 that the amended claims provides an inventive concept under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, the claimed additional elements were evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of the claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually and do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
The claimed additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. While Applicant argues the claims recite improvements to peer-to-peer online marketplaces, Examiner again emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the improvements manifested by the claimed invention, which include the dependent claims, are improvements to the abstract idea itself, not the computer or another technology or technical field.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of the claims.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference A of the Notice of References Cited Bekanich (US 2017/0106997 A1) discloses monitoring locations of devices and triggering an emergency signal in response to a detection of an anomaly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688