DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 19 January 2026.
Claims 1 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 January 2026 with regards to the 112a rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on pages 7 and 8 of their of their response:
“Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement. Office Action, p. 14. More specifically, the Office Action asserts that the specification does not support the ‘Applicant's amendment [that] that the proximity value of the booths, which is based on the proximity to an entrance to the venue to the booth, and is determined by computing distances using navigation and positioning systems.’ Office Action, p. 15. However, the Office Action only cites the ‘main gate’ and ‘entrance’ portion of the specification (i.e., portion of para. [0031]. Applicant respectfully points out that the Applicant's specification also expressly describes detecting distance from a fixed best entrance to each booth and assigning a proximity value accordingly. See, e.g., FIG. 4 of Applicant's Drawings; and Applicant's Specification, para. [0041]. Furthermore, the "computing distances of claim 1 is fully consistent with the booth-distance detection of Applicant's FIG. 4 because the proximity values of claim 1 are based at least in part upon proximity to an entrance, and the fixed best entrance of FIG. 4 is an entrance.
The Office Action further asserts that ‘the Applicant's specification does not refer to using pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods in combination with one or more communication technologies, as now claimed, but instead the specification provides the list as options.’ Office Action, p. 16. The Office Action further asserts that ‘the Applicant's specification does not refer to using pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods in combination with one or more communication technologies, as now claimed, but instead the specification provides the list as options.’ Office Action, p. 17. However, Applicant's specification does not recite ‘PDR methods or Wi-Fi or RFID… ‘ Rather, it recites ‘pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods along with various communication technologies such as Wi-Fi, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) visible light, Bluetooth ultra-wide band (UWB) and other similar technologies.’ Applicant's Specification, para. [0031] (emphasis added). In other words, the Applicant's specification positively describes PDR used together with communication technologies.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of broadest reasonable interpretation of their claimed invention and the breadth of the original written description. In this case, claim 1 (and similarly claim 17) were amended to claim, “determining a first proximity value for a first booth and a second proximity value for a second booth in the venue layout, wherein the first proximity value is based at least in part upon proximity to an entrance to the venue for the first booth and the second proximity value is based at least in part upon proximity to the entrance to the venue for the second booth; wherein the determining the first proximity value and the second proximity values comprises: computing, by a proximity determination unit of a booth valuation engine executing on one or more processors, distances using navigation and positioning systems including pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods together with one or more communication technologies selected from Wi-Fi, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), visible light, and Bluetooth ultra-wideband (UWB).” (Emphasis added). That is, the Applicant has claimed determining proximity values for booths, wherein the proximity values are based in part on the proximity of the respective booth to the entrance of the venue, and wherein determining the proximity values comprises calculating the distances using navigation and positioning systems including pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods together with one or more communication technologies. With respect to the Applicant’s disclosure, paragraph 31 states:
“The booth valuation engine 212 includes a proximity determination unit, a best entrance fixing unit, a best spot fixing unit, a value computation unit and a booth valuation pricing unit. The proximity determination unit computes the distance and estimates the proximity between the main gate of the venue and each entrance of the venue hall using navigation and positioning systems such as but not limited to pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods along with various communication technologies such as Wi-Fi, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) visible light, Bluetooth ultra-wide band (UWB) and other similar technologies. The best entrance fixing unit, based on the proximity computed by the proximity determination unit, chooses the best entrance amongst the available entrances of the venue hall or the best spot at the venue hall. The value computation unit, based on the determined proximity and the fixed best entrance or the best spot, generates a proximity value for booth valuation. The best spot fixing unit fixes a best spot wherein the best spot is the spot with a positive influence on nearby booths. The booth valuation pricing unit, based on the generated proximity value, determines the price for each booth and it is projected to organizers and prospective exhibitors.” (Emphasis added).
Additionally, paragraph 41 states:
“An exhibition has any number of booths. Figure 4 depicts a flowchart 400 of an example of a method to determine proximity value of each booth before sale. The booth valuation engine 212 determines the proximity value of each booth area on the layout at module 402. Available entrances are identified from the venue layout at module 404. Valuation of the booth by fixing the best entrance is initiated by determining the proximity from a main gate of a venue to an entrance of a venue hall at module 406. The entrance with a shortest proximity from the main gate is fixed as a best entrance at module 408. Later, booth layout is fetched at module 410 and the distance from the fixed best entrance to each booth in the venue hall is detected at module 412. A proximity value corresponding to the distance is assigned to each booth at module 414. The proximity values corresponding to a distance are preset by the organizers and accessed from the data store at module 414. The shorter the distance from the fixed best entrance, the higher the proximity value of the booth. Since the distance is short from the venue entrance, it has high visibility and is easy to access by the visitors at the exhibition. Hence high proximity values are assigned to booths with the shortest distance from the fixed entrance. Once proximity values are determined and fixed, the system will set a price to the determined proximity value at module 416. The price is obtained from a list with a price range for each proximity value which is preset by the organizers using a pricing unit. So, the booth will automatically be assigned the price based on the proximity value. Prices are displayed to prospective exhibitors at module 418. In an alternative, the entrance with highest human inflow is fixed as the best entrance.” (Emphasis added).
Additionally, figure 4 shows:
PNG
media_image1.png
744
1308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant has disclosed, the Applicant’s specification sets forth computing the distance and estimates the proximity between the main gate of the venue and each entrance of the venue using navigation and positioning systems such as but not limited to pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods along with various communication technologies such as Wi-Fi, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) visible light, Bluetooth ultra-wide band (UWB) and other similar technologies. Notably, this disclosure lists navigation and positioning systems options, specifically as pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods along with various communication technologies; however this does not state that these are two different technologies are utilized together to calculate distances. Additionally, it is noted that this disclosure describes using the navigation and positioning systems to calculate distances between the venue gate and the venue entrance, and specifically not the distance between the venue entrance and the booths. The Applicant’s original disclosure, as shown and emphasized above continues to describe generating a proximity value for booth valuation based on the determined proximity (which is the distance between the venue gate and venue entrance) and the fixed best entrance to the venue hall or the best spot. Notably, this disclosure does not state that the proximity values of the booths are based on the proximity of the respective booth to the entrance to the venue hall, but instead that the proximity value for booth valuation is based on the proximity (which is the distance between the venue gate and venue entrance) or the best spot. It is also noted, as show and emphasized above, identifying entrances from the venue layout and fixing the best entrance by determining the proximity from a main gate of the venue to an entrance of the venue hall. Additionally, the disclosure shows assigning a proximity value to each booth, which corresponds to the distance between the best entrance to each booth in the venue hall, and that the proximity value corresponding to distance is set by the organizers. This disclosure, does not further disclose determining proximity values for booths based on the proximity to an entrance of the venue to each respective booth, and that the distance is calculated using navigation and positioning systems including pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods together with one or more communication technologies. As such, the Applicant has failed to provide support in their original written description for the amendments made to the claims in the current and previous submissions. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 January 2026 with regards to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 9 of their response:
“The Office Action characterizes claim 1 as encompassing management of commercial activity and/or mental processes. Office Action, pp. 12-13 and 20. Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization is overbroad because claim 1 does not merely recite an economic concept or a mental process. Rather, claim 1 expressly requires implementation on an extended-reality device and expressly recites technical operations that, under a reasonable interpretation, cannot practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, (i) ‘computing distances using navigation and positioning systems including pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods together with one or more communication technologies selected from WiFi, RFID, visible light, and Bluetooth UWB,’ and (ii) ‘generating an extended reality interactive virtual experience that combines a virtual environment and a real-world environment.’
Pedestrian dead reckoning methods and the listed communication technologies (e.g., Wi-Fi, RFID, visible light, UWB) are technical mechanisms for navigation, positioning, and communications. Accordingly, they inherently involve machine-side processing of sensor and/or communication signals that are not mere ‘mental steps.’ Similarly, generating an extended-reality interactive experience that combines a virtual environment with a real-world environment and causing a user to experience the original appearance of real-world assets via the extended-reality interactive experience is a technical extended-reality operation executed by an extended-reality device and is not an abstract mental process.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of their claimed invention, and grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the characterization of the claims as reciting the management of commercial activity and/or mental processes is overly broad because the claims additionally recite the use of an extended-reality device and navigation and positioning systems, the Examiner is not persuaded. Specifically, it is noted that the previous Non-Final rejection stated that these elements were additional elements, and thus were considered in step 2A prong two, and not step 2A prong one, as they were analyzed as to whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, step 2a prong one tasks the Examiner with determining if the claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1) states, “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."” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the MPEP sets forth the instructions when analyzing a claim under the Alice/Mayo test, that is, at step 2A prong one, the Examiner is tasked with determining if the claims recite an abstract idea. In this case, the Examiner previously showed in paragraph 16 of the previous Non-Final Rejection, that the claims do recite an abstract idea, specifically, elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. As the Applicant has failed to rebut this finding, and instead focused on the additional elements, the Examiner is not persuaded of error and maintains that this rejection is proper. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that, “Pedestrian dead reckoning methods and the listed communication technologies (e.g., Wi-Fi, RFID, visible light, UWB) are technical mechanisms for navigation, positioning, and communications,” and that, “they inherently involve machine-side processing of sensor and/or communication signals that are not mere ‘mental steps,’ and “generating an extended-reality interactive experience that combines a virtual environment with a real-world environment and causing a user to experience the original appearance of real-world assets via the extended-reality interactive experience is a technical extended-reality operation executed by an extended-reality device and is not an abstract mental process,” the Examiner is not persuaded of error. Specifically, as noted above, the use of positioning and navigation systems and extended reality interactive experiences, were deemed additional elements, and as such, were not stated as reciting “mental processes” as argued here. Thus, the Applicant’s argument is deemed moot, for failing to reflect the specific rejection given. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 10 of their response, “More specifically, claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claim applies any pricing or valuation concept in a specific technological manner. Namely, claim 1 requires computing physical venue distances and proximities (e.g., booth proximity values based at least in part on proximity to an entrance) using a particular combination of navigation, positioning and communication technologies, and further requires generating an extended-reality interactive experience that combines a real-world environment and a virtual environment, where selection of real-world assets in extended-reality affects further revision of the price. Accordingly, claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea via (i) specific distance and proximity computation tied to venue entrances and booths, and/or (ii) extended-reality interactive experience that is integral to valuation and price revision (i.e., not extra-solution activity).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of their claimed invention, and grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, ‘integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claim applies any pricing or valuation concept in a specific technological manner’ the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, the use of generic computer elements as a tool to carry out an abstract idea, and act in their ordinary capacity is not sufficient to integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” Emphasis added. Thus, merely applying the abstract idea in a “technological manner” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Second, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite, “computing physical venue distances and proximities (e.g., booth proximity values based at least in part on proximity to an entrance) using a particular combination of navigation, positioning and communication technologies, and further requires generating an extended-reality interactive experience that combines a real-world environment and a virtual environment, where selection of real-world assets in extended-reality affects further revision of the price,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, it is noted that paragraph 16 of the previous Non-Final rejection stated, “In particular, providing a venue layout that includes a representation of booths and spots in a venue, determining proximity values for the booths in the venue layout, determining distances, assigning prices price to the booths based on their proximity values, determining that the first booth is sold and the second booth is unsold, revaluing the second booth based on a reputation value weightage of the first booth, assigning a revised price to the second booth based on the revaluing, and providing the revised price; encompasses selling booth placement in a venue, wherein the pricing of the booths are calculated and revised based on the value of the booths and other parameters (such as proximity and distance parameters), and wherein the price is provided to sellers and buyers; which is the management of commercial activity and fundamental economic practice.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the determining of proximity values for booths and determining distances, were shown as reciting the management of commercial activity and fundamental economic practice. In addition, the same section of the previous Non-Final rejection stated, “In addition, the claims further recite determining proximity values for the booths in the venue layout, determining distances, assigning prices price to the booths based on their proximity values, determining that the first booth is sold and the second booth is unsold, revaluing the second booth based on a reputation value weightage of the first booth, assigning a revised price to the second booth based on the revaluing, and providing the revised price; which encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, and judgment).” As shown here, the determining of proximity values for booths and determining distances, were shown as reciting elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, and judgment). Next, it is noted that paragraphs 14 of the previous Non-Final rejection stated, “Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (computer performing the method, processors, booth valuation engine, extended reality interactive virtual experience, pedestrian dean reckoning methods, communication technologies), as tools to carry out the abstract idea. In addition, the generation of an extended reality experience and causing an exhibitor to experience real-world experiences in the virtual environment as deemed extrasolution activity. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the Examiner specifically identified the use of pedestrian dead reckoning methods and communication technologies as tools to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, using generic computer elements, pedestrian dead reckoning methods and communication technologies, to carry out the abstract idea of determining distances between points, is deemed merely a recitation of “apply it.” Notably, MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.” (Emphasis added). In this case, as shown here, the use of generic computer and machine elements to carry out the abstract idea or act in their ordinary capacity, is deemed insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, if the claim improves computer capabilities or another technology, this could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)). In this case, the mere use of generic computer elements to calculate distances, does not improve any computer functionality or other technologies, and instead, merely are being used as tools to determine distances, which is the abstract idea. Additionally, with respect to generating an extended-reality interactive experience that combines a real-world environment and a virtual environment, it is noted that this was shown to be extrasolution activity. Notably, the Applicant states that this is not the case, because it is integral to valuation and price revision, however the Examiner disagrees. Specifically, it is noted that claim 1 states, “assigning a first price from a predetermined price list to the first booth based at least in part on the first proximity value and a second price from the predetermined price list to the second booth based at least in part on the second proximity value; determining that the first booth is sold and the second booth is unsold; revaluing the second booth, based on a reputation value weightage of the first booth, wherein the second booth is a neighborhood booth of the first booth; assigning a revised price to the second booth from the predetermined price list, based on the revaluing; providing the revised price to an exhibitor, an organizer, or both; generating an extended reality interactive virtual experience that combines a virtual environment and a real-world environment; selecting, within the extended reality interactive virtual experience, the second booth and one or more real-world assets of the real-world environment; causing, based on the selecting, the exhibitor to experience an original appearance of the one or more real-world assets for the second booth via the extended reality interactive virtual experience; further revising the revised price based on the selecting; providing the further revised price to the exhibitor, the organizer, or both.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the claims recite assigning prices to booths, revaluing a booth when another has been sold and revising a price for the booth, providing the price to a party, selecting a booth and real-world assets, revising the revised price, and providing the further revised price; which, as noted in paragraph 17 of the previous Non-Final rejection, are the recitation of the abstract idea. Notably, the generation of an extended reality experience and causing an exhibitor to experience real-world experiences in the virtual environment as a user interface is deemed extrasolution activity, as this is merely presenting information to a user, which is pos-solution activity. Notably, MPEP 2106.05(g) states, “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” (Emphasis added). In this case, merely using an interface, specifically an extended reality interactive experience, to display information and receive further selections, is deemed post-solution activity. Notably, the use of an extended reality interactive experience, is merely incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim; which is directed towards determining the pricing of booths in a venue based on their proximity to entrances and the booths in the neighborhood. That is, the extended reality experience is merely a further type of computer interface that a user can use to view outputs and provide inputs, and is not the primary purpose of the claim. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 10 of their response, “More specifically, the Applicant's specification describes, with reference to FIG. 4, a concrete technical workflow, namely, identifying entrances, fixing a best entrance, detecting distance from the fixed best entrance to each booth, setting proximity values based on those distances, and then setting prices based on proximity values. This is not merely "the idea of" pricing or "the idea of" calculating distance. Rather, it is a specific venue-layout proximity computation pipeline tied to physical locations (e.g., entrances and booths).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of their claimed invention, and grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the, “Applicant's specification describes, with reference to FIG. 4, a concrete technical workflow, namely, identifying entrances, fixing a best entrance, detecting distance from the fixed best entrance to each booth, setting proximity values based on those distances, and then setting prices based on proximity values,” it is noted that the test for eligibility is as to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, not that the specification may describe something that is not an abstract idea. Notably, the Applicant here has argued that the specification describes, “a concrete technical workflow, namely, identifying entrances, fixing a best entrance, detecting distance from the fixed best entrance to each booth, setting proximity values based on those distances, and then setting prices based on proximity values,” however, it is noted, that the Applicant has merely described the abstract identified in the claims. In this case, merely referring to a workflow of an abstract idea, does not render it any less abstract. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 11 of their response, “As an ordered combination, these elements provide a technical implementation for venue booth valuation and dynamic pricing that relies on (i) sensor and/or communication-based proximity computation tied to venue entrances and booths, and (ii) extended reality-based recreation of real-world assets used as an input to pricing. This combination is not merely "applying it on a computer," and it is not a generic or conventional computer implementation of a fundamental economic practice.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of their claimed invention, and grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has made a conclusory argument that ordered combination of computing the booth-to-entrance distances and proximities using pedestrian dead reckoning methods together with communication technologies, and generating an extended-reality interactive experience combining real and virtual environments, selecting real-world assets in extended-reality, causing the exhibitor to experience an original appearance of those assets via extended-reality, and further revising the price based on that selection, amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea, however no evidence or discussion has been shown as to why this would be. As noted and discussed above and the previous Non-Final rejection, the calculation of booth-to-entrance distances and proximities, selecting assets, and revising a price based on the selections, recites the abstract idea. Additionally, as noted and discussed above and the previous Non-Final rejection, the use of pedestrian dead reckoning methods together with communication technologies to calculate a distance is merely deemed a recitation of “apply it.” Additionally, as noted and discussed above and the previous Non-Final rejection, the recitation of using an extended-reality interactive experience, is deemed extrasolution activity. Notably, the combination of these elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Second, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “this combination is not merely "applying it on a computer," and it is not a generic or conventional computer implementation of a fundamental economic practice,” the Examiner notes that this argument is not reflective of the specific rejection given, and thus is found moot. Therefore the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on pages 11 and 12 of their response, “Furthermore, the Office Action acknowledges that the claims are allowed over the prior art of record and that the closest prior art does not teach the specific ordered combination of claim limitations including ‘assigning a first price from a predetermined price list to the first booth based at least in part on the first proximity value and a second price from the predetermined price list to the second booth based at least in part on the second proximity value; determining that the first booth is sold and the second booth is unsold; revaluing the second booth, based on a reputation value weightage of the first booth, wherein the second booth is a neighborhood booth of the first booth; assigning a revised price to the second booth from the predetermined price list, based on the revaluing.’ Office Action, pp. 27-28. This supports the conclusion that the ordered combination recited in claim 1 is not ‘well-understood, routine, and conventional’ as arranged in the claim. Accordingly, these features provide significantly more than the alleged abstract ideas and render the claim patent eligible.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of their claimed invention, and grounds of the previous and current rejection. In this case, MPEP 2106.05 states “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). 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."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the novelty and obviousness of the claims has no relevance as to determining whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Specifically, a novel and non-obvious abstract idea, is still an abstract idea, and thus, would not be patent eligible subject matter. In this case, the elements for which the Examiner previously identified as novel and non-obvious, are found to recite an abstract idea, and thus, would not be patent eligible subject matter, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to said abstract idea. As discussed above and in the previous rejections, this is not the case, as the additional elements, taken individually and in combination with the abstract idea, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to said abstract idea. Thus, the Examiner is not persuaded of error, and maintains that this rejection is proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant has amended the claim to state, “determining a first proximity value for a first booth and a second proximity value for a second booth in the venue layout, wherein the first proximity value is based at least in part upon proximity to an entrance to the venue for the first booth and the second proximity value is based at least in part upon proximity to the entrance to the venue for the second booth; wherein the determining the first proximity value and the second proximity values comprises: computing, by a proximity determination unit of a booth valuation engine executing on one or more processors, distances using navigation and positioning systems including pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods together with one or more communication technologies selected from Wi-Fi, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), visible light, and Bluetooth ultra-wideband (UWB).” The Applicant has failed to provide support in their original written description that would convey to one skilled in the art that they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In particular, paragraph 31 states, “The booth valuation engine 212 includes a proximity determination unit, a best entrance fixing unit, a best spot fixing unit, a value computation unit and a booth valuation pricing unit. The proximity determination unit computes the distance and estimates the proximity between the main gate of the venue and each entrance of the venue hall using navigation and positioning systems such as but not limited to pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods along with various communication technologies such as Wi-Fi, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) visible light, Bluetooth ultra-wide band (UWB) and other similar technologies.” In this case, the Applicant has disclosed the proximity determination unit computes distance and estimates the proximity between the main gate of the venue and each entrance of the venue hall using navigation and positioning systems, which include pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods along with various communication technologies such as Wi-Fi, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) visible light, Bluetooth ultra-wide band (UWB) and other similar technologies. Notably, this disclosure does not support the Applicant’s amendment that that the proximity value of the booths, which is based on the proximity to an entrance to the venue to the booth, and is determined by computing distances using navigation and positioning systems. Instead, the Applicant’s specification refers to the booth valuation engine, which includes a proximity determination unit, as computing the distance and estimates the proximity between the main gate of the venue and each entrance of the venue hall. Additionally, the Applicant’s claims refer to using navigation and positioning systems including pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods together with one or more communication technologies selected from Wi-Fi, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), visible light, and Bluetooth ultra-wideband (UWB); however, this is not supported in the specification. Specifically, the specification refers to “navigation and positioning systems such as but not limited to,” meaning that the list of elements after this are options. As shown above, this list is stated to be “pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods along with various communication technologies such as Wi-Fi, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) visible light, Bluetooth ultra-wide band (UWB) and other similar technologies.” As shown here, the Applicant’s specification does not refer to using pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods in combination with one or more communication technologies, as now claimed, but instead the specification provides the list as options. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite providing a venue layout that includes a representation of booths and spots in a venue, wherein a spot is a non-booth area; determining a first proximity value for a first booth and a second proximity value for a second booth in the venue layout, wherein the first proximity value is based at least in part upon proximity to an entrance to the venue for the first booth and the second proximity value is based at least in part upon proximity to the entrance to the venue for the second booth; wherein the determining the first proximity value and the second proximity values comprises: computing, by a proximity determination unit of a booth valuation engine executing on one or more processors, distances using navigation and positioning systems including pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) methods together with one or more communication technologies selected from Wi-Fi, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), visible light, and Bluetooth ultra-wideband (UWB); assigning a first price from a predetermined price list to the first booth based at least in part on the first proximity value and a second price from the predetermined price list to the second booth based at least in part on the second proximity value; determining that the first booth is sold and the second booth is unsold; revaluing the second booth, based on a reputation value weightage of the first booth, wherein the second booth is a neighborhood booth of the first booth; assigning a revised price to the second booth from the predetermined price list, based on the revaluing; providing the revised price to an exhibitor, an organizer, or both; generating an extended reality interactive virtual experience that combines a virtual environment and a real-world environment; selecting, within the extended reality interactive virtual experience, the second booth and one or more real-world assets of the real-world environment; causing, based on the selecting, the exhibitor to experience an original appearance of the one or more real-world assets for the second booth via the extended reality interactive virtual experience; further revising the revised price based on the selecting; providing the further revised price to the exhibitor, the organizer, or both.
The limitations of providing a venue layout that includes a representation of booths and spots in a venue; determining a first proximity value for a first booth and a second proximity value for a second booth in the venue layout based at least in part upon proximity to an entrance to the venue booths; computing distances; assigning a first price from a predetermined price list to the first booth based at least in part on the first proximity value and a second price from the predetermined price list to the second booth based at least in part on the second proximity value; determining that the first booth is sold and the second booth is unsold; revaluing the second booth based on a reputation value weightage of the first booth; assigning a revised price to the second booth from the predetermined price list based on the revaluing; providing the revised price; selecting the second booth and one or more real-world assets of the real-world environment; further revising the revised price based on the selecting; providing the further revised price to a party; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), fundamental economic practice, and a series of mental processes. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (computer performing the method, processors, booth valuation engine, extended reality interactive virtual experience, pedestrian dean reckoning methods, communication technologies), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, providing a venue layout that includes a representation of booths and spots in a venue, determining proximity values for the booths in the venue layout, determining distances, assigning prices price to the booths based on their proximity values, determining that the first booth is sold and the second booth is unsold, revaluing the second booth based on a reputation value weightage of the first booth, assigning a revised price to the second booth based on the revaluing, and providing the revised price; encompasses selling booth placement in a venue, wherein the pricing of the booths are calculated and revised based on the value of the booths and other parameters (such as proximity and distance parameters), and wherein the price is provided to sellers and buyers; which is the management of commercial activity and fundamental economic practice. In addition, selecting a booth and real-world assets, further revising the price based on the selecting, and providing the further revised price to a party; encompass a booth seller selecting booths and assets, revising the pricing further based on selections, and providing the pricing to parties; which is the management of commercial activity and fundamental economic practice. As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the claims further recite determining proximity values for the booths in the venue layout, determining distances, assigning prices price to the booths based on their proximity values, determining that the first booth is sold and the second booth is unsold, revaluing the second booth based on a reputation value weightage of the first booth, assigning a revised price to the second booth based on the revaluing, and providing the revised price; which encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, and judgment). In addition, selecting a booth and real-world assets, further revising the price based on the selecting, and providing the further revised price to a party; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement). As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (computer performing the method, processors, booth valuation engine, extended reality interactive virtual experience, pedestrian dean reckoning methods, communication technologies), as tools to carry out the abstract idea. In addition, the generation of an extended reality experience and causing an exhibitor to experience real-world experiences in the virtual environment as deemed extrasolution activity. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, 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 element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts 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. In addition, the generation of an extended reality experience and causing an exhibitor to experience real-world experiences in the virtual environment as deemed extrasolution activity, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see at paragraph 40 of the Applicant’s specification which describe the use of an extended reality experience to generate an experience for a user at such a high level of generality that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it was well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in order to satisfy 112a). The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-16, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite revaluing the booth based on a composite value of the booth; which merely further recites the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), fundamental economic practice, and a series of mental processes, as discussed with claim 1, and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 2). In addition, the claims further recite revaluing the booth based on a reputation value weighable of a nearby booth; which merely further recites the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), fundamental economic practice, and a series of mental processes, as discussed with claim 1, and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 3). In addition, the claims further recite storing the proximity data and the value from revaluing as legacy data, which encompasses extrasolution activity of data gathering, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d), “Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93) which does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 4). In addition, the claims further recite identifying available entrances from the venue layout, analyzing distance from a main gate of the venue for the available entrances, defining the first entrance as a best entrance when the first entrance has a shorter distance from the main gate than other entrances of the available entrances, determining the proximity values for the booths based on proximity of the booths to the best entrance, and obtaining a price from the predetermined price list based on the calculated proximity value for the first booth; which merely further recites the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), fundamental economic practice, and a series of mental processes, as discussed with claim 1, and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 5). In addition, the claims further recite a best entrance as being an entrance with the highest human inflow; which merely further recites the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), and a series of mental processes, as discussed with claim 1, and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 6). In addition, the claims further recite picking the second booth from the venue layout, determining status of the second booth is unsold, determining a booth position for the second booth, determining neighborhood sold booths, retrieving sold booth values of the determined neighborhood booths, comparing the retrieved sold booth values, determining and picking a highest sold value booth, retrieving a proximity value of the second booth, examining the proximity value of the second booth and the picked highest sold value booth, fetching reputation value weightage of the sold booth, obtaining a revalued value by summing the fetched reputation value weightage with the proximity value of the second booth and the determined highest sold value of the sold booth, and assigning a revised price for the second booth based on the revalued value; which merely further recites the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), fundamental economic practice, and a series of mental processes, as discussed with claim 1, and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 7). In addition, the claims recite determining a proximity value of a third booth that is close to a spot with a positive influence on neighboring booths and the proximity value is based on the proximity to the spot; which merely further recites the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), fundamental economic practice, and a series of mental processes, as discussed with claim 1, and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 8). In addition, the claims further recite determining an upsurge value for the first booth before and during an event based on a reputation value weightage of a sold booth an influencing factors; which merely further recites the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), fundamental economic practice, and a series of mental processes, as discussed with claim 1, and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 9). In addition, the claims further recite generating a trend graph for an upsurge value and providing to an exhibitor; which encompasses the performance of mathematical concepts (graphing data), and managing commercial activity (business relations, marketing, sales activities), and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 10). In addition, the claims further recite determining a depleted value for booths and improvement influencing factors; which merely further recites the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), fundamental economic practice, and a series of mental processes, as discussed with claim 1, and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 11). In addition, the claims further recite determining a combined booth, and revaluing values of the combined booth based on a composite value of the combined booth and the reputation weightage of a neighboring booth; which merely further recites the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), fundamental economic practice, and a series of mental processes, as discussed with claim 1, and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claims 12 and 13). In addition, the claims further recite influencing factors including real-world customization and venue reactive parameters; which merely further recites the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), fundamental economic practice, and a series of mental processes, as discussed with claim 1, and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 14). In addition, the claims further recite determining booths based on a real-world customization parameter of an influencing factor and/or venue reactive parameter of the influencing factor; which merely further recites the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), fundamental economic practice, and a series of mental processes, as discussed with claim 1, and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 15). In addition, the claims further recite revaluing the second booth based on parameters of a virtual booth; which merely further recites the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations), fundamental economic practice, and a series of mental processes, as discussed with claim 1, and thus recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 16).
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-17 are allowed over the prior art of record; however remain rejected under other statutes. In particular, the closest prior art, taken individually and in an ordered combination, does not teach the specific ordered combination of elements of claims 1 and 17, specifically, “assigning a first price from a predetermined price list to the first booth based at least in part on the first proximity value and a second price from the predetermined price list to the second booth based at least in part on the second proximity value; determining that the first booth is sold and the second booth is unsold; revaluing the second booth, based on a reputation value weightage of the first booth, wherein the second booth is a neighborhood booth of the first booth; assigning a revised price to the second booth from the predetermined price list, based on the revaluing;” (Emphasis added). Claims 2-16 depend upon claim 1 and therefore are allowed over the prior art as well.
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 MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)-270-1833. 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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
20 February 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628