DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for reconsideration of application 18/476,772 (09/28/23) filed on 08/31/26.
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 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- 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).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a machine (i.e. a system).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is involves transmitting one of a plurality of wireless beacons conveying a unique identifier; receiving the plurality of wireless beacons transmitted by three or more of the plurality of beacon transmitters and generating beacon data in response thereto that indicates the unique identifier identifiers conveyed by received wireless beacons of the plurality of wireless beacons; and storing a table database that correlates the unique identifier associated with each of the plurality of wireless beacons to table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generating map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables on a map of the venue that includes labels of the table identifiers; generating, in response to the beacon data from the plurality of beacon receivers and based on the plurality of fixed locations corresponding to the plurality of beacon receivers, location data that indicates positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters, wherein the location data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data corresponding to wireless beacons transmitted by each of the plurality of beacon transmitters and received by a combination of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers; determining a current position of each of the plurality of tables utilizing the table database, the location data, and by associating the positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters to the table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generating updated map display data based on a remapping, that plots the current position of each of the plurality of tables on the map of the venue, that includes the labels of the table identifiers, wherein, responsive to the current position of at least one of the plurality of tables differing from the initial position of the at least one of the plurality of tables, the remapping causes a change in the table identifier associated with one or more of the beacon transmitters affixed to the at least one of the plurality of tables, repurposing the one or more beacon transmitters without pushing new data to the one or more beacon transmitters; and facilitating display of the updated map display data, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (generating a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables; generating updated map display data based on a remapping; facilitating display of the updated map display data for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue); commercial or legal interactions (generating a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables; generating updated map display data based on a remapping; facilitating display of the updated map display data for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (transmit, receive, generate, store, determine, facilitate, etc.).
The mere nominal recitation of a “system” comprising “a plurality of beacon transmitters”; “a plurality of beacon receivers”; and “a processing system” that includes “a memory” and “a processing circuit” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to transmitting one of a plurality of wireless beacons conveying a unique identifier; receiving the plurality of wireless beacons transmitted by three or more of the plurality of beacon transmitters and generating beacon data in response thereto that indicates the unique identifier identifiers conveyed by received wireless beacons of the plurality of wireless beacons; and storing a table database that correlates the unique identifier associated with each of the plurality of wireless beacons to table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generating map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables on a map of the venue that includes labels of the table identifiers; generating, in response to the beacon data from the plurality of beacon receivers and based on the plurality of fixed locations corresponding to the plurality of beacon receivers, location data that indicates positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters, wherein the location data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data corresponding to wireless beacons transmitted by each of the plurality of beacon transmitters and received by a combination of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers; determining a current position of each of the plurality of tables utilizing the table database, the location data, and by associating the positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters to the table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generating updated map display data based on a remapping, that plots the current position of each of the plurality of tables on the map of the venue, that includes the labels of the table identifiers, wherein, responsive to the current position of at least one of the plurality of tables differing from the initial position of the at least one of the plurality of tables, the remapping causes a change in the table identifier associated with one or more of the beacon transmitters affixed to the at least one of the plurality of tables, repurposing the one or more beacon transmitters without pushing new data to the one or more beacon transmitters; and facilitating display of the updated map display data.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. Although the claim refers to a “system” comprising “a plurality of beacon transmitters”; “a plurality of beacon receivers”; and “a processing system” that includes “a memory” and “a processing circuit”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually transmitting one of a plurality of wireless beacons conveying a unique identifier; receiving the plurality of wireless beacons transmitted by three or more of the plurality of beacon transmitters and generating beacon data in response thereto that indicates the unique identifier identifiers conveyed by received wireless beacons of the plurality of wireless beacons; and storing a table database that correlates the unique identifier associated with each of the plurality of wireless beacons to table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generating map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables on a map of the venue that includes labels of the table identifiers; generating, in response to the beacon data from the plurality of beacon receivers and based on the plurality of fixed locations corresponding to the plurality of beacon receivers, location data that indicates positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters, wherein the location data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data corresponding to wireless beacons transmitted by each of the plurality of beacon transmitters and received by a combination of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers; determining a current position of each of the plurality of tables utilizing the table database, the location data, and by associating the positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters to the table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generating updated map display data based on a remapping, that plots the current position of each of the plurality of tables on the map of the venue, that includes the labels of the table identifiers, wherein, responsive to the current position of at least one of the plurality of tables differing from the initial position of the at least one of the plurality of tables, the remapping causes a change in the table identifier associated with one or more of the beacon transmitters affixed to the at least one of the plurality of tables, repurposing the one or more beacon transmitters without pushing new data to the one or more beacon transmitters; and facilitating display of the updated map display data. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of a “system” comprising “a plurality of beacon transmitters”; “a plurality of beacon receivers”; and “a processing system” that includes “a memory” and “a processing circuit”. (b) Although a “display device” is referenced in the claim, the “display device” merely interacts with “the processing system” of the claimed “system”. The “display device” itself does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention.
The mere nominal recitation of a “system” comprising “a plurality of beacon transmitters”; “a plurality of beacon receivers”; and “a processing system” that includes “a memory” and “a processing circuit” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “a plurality of beacon transmitters affixed to a plurality of tables that are rearrangeable to differing positions”; “a plurality of beacon receivers at a corresponding plurality of fixed locations”; and “a processing system that employs cloud logic includes a memory that stores operational instructions corresponding to an intelligent venue application and a processing circuit configured to execute the operational instructions” performing each of the positively recited steps or acts. The claim also recites the combination of additional elements of the updated map display data being displayed “via a display device”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “transmit”, “receive”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data storage (e.g., “store”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data processing (e.g., “generate”, “determine”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “facilitate display”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering a unique identifier associated with each of a plurality of wireless beacons), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 09/28/23 does not provide any indication that the technology is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, [0068] [0069] [0071] [0072] [0073]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Rogers, US Pub. No. 2020/0327531; Bell, US Pub. No. 2016/0078419; Musk, US Pub. No. 2021/0374885; Lee, US Pub. No. 2021/0312424; and L’Heureux, US Pub. No. 2014/0257877 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “transmit”, “receive”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data storage (e.g., “store”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data processing (e.g., “generate”, “determine”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “facilitate display”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. See Rogers, abstract, Fig. 5, [0008] [0009] [0010] [0011] [0012] [0014] [0015] [0018] [0020] [0021] [0022] [0029] [0030] [0031] [0044] [0045] [0046] [0049] [0051] [0053] [0054] [0058] [0059] [0071] [0075] [0082] [0083] [0086] [0088] [0093] [0098] [0099] [0100] [0108] [0113] [0115] [0124]. See Bell, [0025]. See Musk, [0025] [0026] [0027] [0028]. See Lee, [0021] [0048]. See L’Heureux, abstract, [0002] [0015] [0020] [0051] [0059] [0061]. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “transmit”, “receive”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data storage (e.g., “store”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data processing (e.g., “generate”, “determine”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “facilitate display”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Versata Dev. Group, OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018) (displaying and disseminating financial information) and Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized web pages) indicate displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claims 2 and 7, although a “client device” is referenced in the claim(s), the “client device” merely interacts with “the processing system” of the claimed “system”. The “client device” itself does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention is representative of insignificant extra-solution activity. With respect to claim 6, although a “gas pump”/ “display device at the gas pump” is referenced in the claim(s), the “gas pump”/ “display device at the gas pump” merely interacts with “the processing system” of the claimed “system”. The “gas pump”/ “display device at the gas pump” itself does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention is representative of insignificant extra-solution activity. With respect to claims 8, 10 and 11, although a “display device at the venue” is referenced in the claim(s), the “display device at the venue” merely interacts with “the processing system” of the claimed “system”. The “display device at the venue” itself does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention is representative of insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to claim 3, the incorporation of an “artificial intelligence (AI) model” would suggest the abstract idea of Mental Processes is no longer applicable.
First, the facts associated with the claimed invention are more aligned with Example 47, claim 2 from the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples which were found to be ineligible. For example, dependent claim 3 depends from independent claim 1 which recites “a processing system that employs cloud logic includes a memory that stores operational instructions corresponding to an intelligent venue application and a processing circuit configured to execute the operational instructions”. This language is very similar to the “at a computer” and “by the computer” language recited in Example 47, claim 2. In Example 47, claim 2 this language was considered to be recited at a high level of generality i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions. For example, the claim 3 refers to “wherein the cloud logic includes an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained via training data that includes table composition, temperature and humidity and wherein the location data for each one of the plurality beacon transmitters is generated further based on output of the Al model in response to the beacon data”. This language is very similar to the “using the trained ANN” and “outputting the anomaly data from the trained ANN” recited in Example 47, claim 2. In Example 47, claim 2 this language was determined not to provide any details about how the trained artificial neural network (ANN) operates and merely provided a generic output.
Second, Desjardins is particularly relevant to evaluating claims related to machine learning or artificial intelligence. Desjardins suggests eligibility determinations should turn on whether “the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea”. (See Desjardins, pg. 8). See Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567.
Generating a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables; generating updated map display data based on a remapping; and facilitating display of the updated map display data is directed to the underlying abstract idea, not the functioning of the computer itself. Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to the use of a computer as a tool or the benefits of automation itself.
Lastly, the court in Recentive Analytics concluded, “patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied are patent ineligible under § 101.” See pg. 18 of Recentive Analytics. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. United States Cour of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 2023-2437.
In the instant case, the claimed invention may be applying the “artificial intelligence (AI) model”, but no improvements to the AI model itself have been made.
With respect to claim 18, the claim also recites the abstract idea of a Mathematical Concepts.
Mathematical Concepts
The claim recites a mathematical formula or calculation (wherein the location data is further generated based on a spatial averaging of pairwise distance estimates generated based on the beacon data received …..). Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
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, 4, 12 and 18 (claims 2 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22 based on their dependency) 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.
Claim 1 (claims 2 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22 based on their dependency) recites, “a plurality of beacon receivers at a corresponding plurality of fixed locations, each of the plurality of beacon receivers configured to receive the plurality of wireless beacons transmitted by three or more of the plurality of beacon transmitters and further configured to generate beacon data in response thereto that indicates unique identifiers conveyed by received wireless beacons of the plurality of wireless beacons,” and
“wherein the location data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data corresponding to wireless beacons transmitted by each of the plurality of beacon transmitters and received by a combination of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers;”
Although there appears to be support in applicant’s specification for a “plurality of beacon transmitters”; “plurality of wireless beacons”; and a “plurality of beacon receivers”, it is unclear where the requirement of “three or more” may be found. A “plurality” only means a number greater than one. See also, para. [0071] [0084] [0123] [0128] of applicant’s specification as filed 09/28/23.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the location data for each one of the plurality of beacon transmitters is generated further based on angle of arrival and signal strength data received by the combination of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers.”
Although there appears to be support in applicant’s specification for a “plurality of beacon receivers”, it is unclear whether the requirement of “three or more” may be found. A “plurality” only means a number greater than one. See also, para. [0071] [0084] [0123] [0128] of applicant’s specification as filed 09/28/23.
Claim 12 recites, “wherein each of the beacon transmitters invisibly convey a unique identifier by wirelessly broadcasting one of the plurality of wireless beacons from underneath one of the plurality of tables. “
Although there appears to be support in applicant’s specification that “each wireless beacon conveys a unique identifier”, it is unclear where the requirement that it occurs “from underneath one of the plurality of tables” may be found. See also, para. [0078] [00231] [0243] [0257] of applicant’s specification as filed 09/28/23.
Claim 18 recites, “wherein the location data is further generated based on a spatial averaging of pairwise distance estimates generated based on the beacon data received via beacon receiver pairs of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers.”
Although there appears to be support in applicant’s specification for a “plurality of beacon receivers”, it is unclear whether the requirement of “three or more” may be found. A “plurality” only means a number greater than one. See also, para. [0071] [0084] [0123] [0128] of applicant’s specification as filed 09/28/23.
Response to Arguments
Objections
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the claim(s) are not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Fundamental economic principles or practices relate to the economy and commerce. The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to generating a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables; generating updated map display data based on a remapping; facilitating display of the updated map display data for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue.
With respect to applicant’s suggestion that the intended use/ purpose of the claimed invention cannot be “for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue” because there is not an explicit recitation in independent claim 1, the examiner disagrees. Dependent claims 2 and 7 explicitly describe the role of the claimed invention to “facilitate payment for a transaction at a venue”. Furthermore, applicant’s specification (See at least para. [0259]; [0331- [0335]; [0344]; [0352] - [0355] as filed 9/28/23) also supports the interpretation that the intended use/ purpose of the claimed invention is “for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue”.
Table arrangements, payment for a transaction, etc. (i.e., generating a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables; generating updated map display data based on a remapping; facilitating display of the updated map display data for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue) are longstanding commercial practices in economic and commercial areas such as Business Management/ Restaurant Management.
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention relates to generating a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables; generating updated map display data based on a remapping; facilitating display of the updated map display data for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue. Table arrangements, payment for a transaction, etc. are “commercial or legal interactions” such as “sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations” that occur in many settings or venues (e.g., restaurants, bars, special event spaces, etc.).
With respect to applicant’s suggestion that the intended use/ purpose of the claimed invention cannot be “for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue” because there is not an explicit recitation in independent claim 1, the examiner disagrees. Dependent claims 2 and 7 explicitly describe the role of the claimed invention to “facilitate payment for a transaction at a venue”. Furthermore, applicant’s specification (See at least para. [0259]; [0331- [0335]; [0344]; [0352] - [0355] as filed 9/28/25) also supports the interpretation that the intended use/ purpose of the claimed invention is “for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue”.
Table arrangements, payment for a transaction, etc. (i.e., generating a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables; generating updated map display data based on a remapping; facilitating display of the updated map display data for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue) involve “commercial or legal interactions” such as “sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations” that can be found in areas such as Business Management/ Restaurant Management.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (transmit, receive, generate, store, determine, facilitate, etc.) between people (e.g., employees/ staff of a venue; customers/ guests of a venue).
With respect to applicant’s suggestion the claimed invention does not pertain to “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”, the examiner disagrees. The machine(s)/ machine component(s) are serving as a proxy for their human counterparts (e.g., venue (“processing system”/ “intelligent venue app”; “plurality of beacon transmitters”; “plurality of beacon receivers”); employees/ staff (“display device”); and customers/ guests (“client device”). Claims 1, 2, and 7 - 11; and applicant’s specification (See at least para. [0068] [0069] [0071] as filed 9/28/25) supports the interpretation. These parties are engaged in the types of “social activities” that occur at a “venue” (e.g., table arrangements, transaction, etc. (i.e., generating map display data that plots the current position of each of a plurality of tables and facilitating display of the map display data for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue)).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “generate map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables on a map of the venue that includes labels of the table identifiers”; “generate ….. location data …..”; “determine a current position of each of the plurality of tables …..” ; and “generate updated map display data based on a remapping, that plots the current position of each of the plurality of tables on the map of the venue …..”;) which are examples of mental processes.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Although claims 1 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22 suggest the steps or acts occur on a computer (i.e., “system” comprising “a plurality of beacon transmitters”; “a plurality of beacon receivers”; and “a processing system” that includes “a memory” and “a processing circuit” in system claims 1 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22), nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process.
With respect to applicant’s suggestion the claimed invention does not pertain to “mental processes”, the examiner disagrees. The machine(s)/ machine component(s) are serving as a proxy for their human counterparts (e.g., venue (“processing system”/ “intelligent venue app”; “plurality of beacon transmitters”; “plurality of beacon receivers”); employees/ staff (“display device”); and customers/ guests (“client device”). Claims 1, 2, and 7 - 11; and applicant’s specification (See at least para. [0068] [0069] [0071] as filed 9/28/25) supports the interpretation. A claimed invention that requires a computer or is performed on a computer can still recite a mental process. With respect to applicant’s suggestions to the contrary, the examiner disagrees. Nothing in the claimed invention suggests the “venue” is a disconnected location and nothing in the claimed invention places limitations on the size or complexity of the “venue” environment. For example, an employee/ staff member visually scanning table number stands on tables in a room (e.g. restaurant), making a mental note of the arrangement of the tables in the room and how to engage customers/guests accordingly would be something that could be “performed in the human mind”.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
With respect to claim 3, the incorporation of an “artificial intelligence (AI) model” would suggest the abstract idea of Mental Processes is no longer applicable.
Mathematical Concepts
With respect to claim 18, the claim also recites the abstract idea of a Mathematical Concepts.
The claim recites a mathematical formula or calculation (wherein the location data is further generated based on a spatial averaging of pairwise distance estimates generated based on the beacon data received …..). Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(2)Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant’s suggestion that the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it provides: (a) technical solution to a technical problem “Accordingly, the pending claims are directed to a specific technological solution implemented through a beacon-based localization architecture, not a mental process.” See pg. 13 of applicant’s arguments/remarks as filed 08/31/26.); and (b) improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (i.e., “Accordingly, the technology being improved is not restaurant management, table service, payment processing, or human observation of table locations. Rather, the technology being improved is a beacon-based localization and positioning system used to determine and maintain positions of movable physical objects within a physical environment.” See pg. 10 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 08/31/26. “The technological improvement recited in claim 1 is an improvement in how beacon-based localization systems determine, maintain, and dynamically update positions of movable objects within a venue.” See pg. 10 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 08/31/26. “The specification explains that these techniques improve operation of beacon-based localization systems.” See pg. 11 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 08/31/26. “Accordingly, the claims do not merely determine where tables are located. Rather, the claims improve beacon-based localization technology through multi-receiver position determination and dynamic remapping of beacon-object relationships.” See pg. 11 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 08/31/26.) suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
The “solution”/ “improvements” applicant suggests are really just the benefits of automation itself.
For example, although claims 1 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22 suggest the steps or acts occur on a computer (i.e., “system” comprising “a plurality of beacon transmitters”; “a plurality of beacon receivers”; and “a processing system” that includes “a memory” and “a processing circuit” in system claims 1 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22), there is nothing in the claimed invention as to why technology would be necessary.
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not
not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05(f).
Many of the features applicant relies upon are “insignificant”. For example, they amount to “necessary data gathering and outputting” (e.g., “receiving, at a property marketplace platform, external data from one or more external data systems for a plurality of properties, wherein the external data comprises listings data, local costs data, property financing data for the plurality of properties, and credit profile data corresponding to a user, and wherein the local costs data comprises data relating to one or more utilities expenses”; and “transmitting, from the property marketplace platform, the visualization data to the user device.”). For example, the limitations are not significant as to impose meaningful limitations on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention (e.g., “wherein the visualization data is configured for use in generating one or more interfaces for the user device associated with the user, and wherein the one or more interfaces comprise a map interface configured to be manipulated by the user to display a visualization for a subset of the plurality of properties and a subset of the plurality of TC values via the user device”.). Applicant’s claimed invention is exclusively directed to the “property marketplace platform”/ “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and the intended use of another, unclaimed device (i.e., “user device”) by a human operator (i.e., “user”) is insignificant.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Many of the features applicant relies upon are “insignificant”. For example, they amount to “necessary data gathering and outputting” (e.g., “a plurality of beacon transmitters affixed to a plurality of tables that are rearrangeable to differing positions, each of the plurality of beacon transmitters configured to transmit one of a plurality of wireless beacons conveying a unique identifier; a plurality of beacon receivers at a corresponding plurality of fixed locations, each of the plurality of beacon receivers configured to receive the plurality of wireless beacons transmitted by three or more of the plurality of beacon transmitters …..”).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “….. transmit one of a plurality of wireless beacons conveying a unique identifier; ….. receive the plurality of wireless beacons transmitted by three or more of the plurality of beacon transmitters …..”); analyzing it (e.g., “….. generate beacon data in response thereto that indicates the unique identifier identifiers conveyed by received wireless beacons of the plurality of wireless beacons”; “generate map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables on a map of the venue that includes labels of the table identifiers; generate, in response to the beacon data from the plurality of beacon receivers and based on the plurality of fixed locations corresponding to the plurality of beacon receivers, location data that indicates positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters, wherein the location data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data corresponding to wireless beacons transmitted by each of the plurality of beacon transmitters and received by a combination of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers; determine a current position of each of the plurality of tables utilizing the table database, the location data, and by associating the positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters to the table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generate updated map display data based on a remapping, that plots the current position of each of the plurality of tables on the map of the venue, that includes the labels of the table identifiers, wherein, responsive to the current position of at least one of the plurality of tables differing from the initial position of the at least one of the plurality of tables, the remapping causes a change in the table identifier associated with one or more of the beacon transmitters affixed to the at least one of the plurality of tables, repurposing the one or more beacon transmitters without pushing new data to the one or more beacon transmitters;”); and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g., “facilitate display of the updated map display data via a display device.”) merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
NOTE: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The specification explains that these techniques improve operation of beacon-based localization systems. For example, the specification describes generation of location determinations from multiple beacon receiver measurements, triangulation and trilateration techniques, spatial averaging techniques, angle-of-arrival techniques, clustering and outlier elimination techniques, and remapping mechanisms that permit reassignment of beacon associations through database updates rather than reprogramming the beacon devices. See, Specification as filed, [0080]-[0082], [0090]-[0105], and [0206]-[0226].” See pg. 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 08/31/26.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). NOTE: Most of the features applicant relies upon (e.g., “generation of location determinations from multiple beacon receiver measurements, triangulation and trilateration techniques, spatial averaging techniques, angle-of-arrival techniques, clustering and outlier elimination techniques”) are not recited in the claimed invention as represented by independent claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
(3)Applicant argues the claimed invention provides an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 09/28/23 does not provide any indication that the technology is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, [0068] [0069] [0071] [0072] [0073]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Rogers, US Pub. No. 2020/0327531; Bell, US Pub. No. 2016/0078419; Musk, US Pub. No. 2021/0374885; Lee, US Pub. No. 2021/0312424; and L’Heureux, US Pub. No. 2014/0257877 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “transmit”, “receive”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data storage (e.g., “store”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data processing (e.g., “generate”, “determine”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “facilitate display”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. See Rogers, abstract, Fig. 5, [0008] [0009] [0010] [0011] [0012] [0014] [0015] [0018] [0020] [0021] [0022] [0029] [0030] [0031] [0044] [0045] [0046] [0049] [0051] [0053] [0054] [0058] [0059] [0071] [0075] [0082] [0083] [0086] [0088] [0093] [0098] [0099] [0100] [0108] [0113] [0115] [0124]. See Bell, [0025]. See Musk, [0025] [0026] [0027] [0028]. See Lee, [0021] [0048]. See L’Heureux, abstract, [0002] [0015] [0020] [0051] [0059] [0061]. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “transmit”, “receive”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data storage (e.g., “store”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data processing (e.g., “generate”, “determine”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “facilitate display”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Versata Dev. Group, OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018) (displaying and disseminating financial information) and Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized web pages) indicate displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
(4) Applicant argues dependent claims.
Dependent claims 2 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Like independent claim 1, dependent claims 4, 5 and 14 are similarly directed to the abstract idea of table arrangements, payment for a transaction, etc. (i.e., generating a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables; generating updated map display data based on a remapping; facilitating display of the updated map display data for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue). Like independent claim 1, dependent claims 4, 5 and 14 encompass (a) “certain methods of organizing human activity” such as “economic principles or practices”; “commercial or legal interactions” such as “sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations”; and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions”; and (b) “mental processes”. The correlation between “location” and “angle of arrival”/ “signal strength” described in claim 4 does not represent the type of “solution”/ “improvement” applicant’s remarks appear to imply. See Lee, [0003] [0022] [0023] [0027] [0028] [0040] [0041]. With respect to claim 5, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The specification explains that beacon transmitters associated with fixed locations may be used to calibrate localization calculations, identify environmental variations, compensate for measurement drift, and improve localization accuracy. See, Specification as filed, [0103] - [0105]. Claim 5 is therefore directed to a specific improvement in operation of the localization system itself.” See pg. 13 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 08/31/26.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The correlation between “orientation” and “seating position” described in claim 14 does not represent the type of “solution”/ “improvement” applicant’s remarks appear to imply. See Rogers, abstract, [0009] [0011] [0012] [0013] [0021] [0029] [0030] [0031] [0045] [0046] [0053] [0054] [0071] [0075] [0093] [ [0108] [0113] [0115]. Similar to independent claim 1, the steps or acts recited in dependent claims 4, 5 and 14 are directed to the types of tasks (e.g., (a) data receipt/ transmission; (b) data storage; (c) data processing (e.g., “generate”/ “generated”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (d) data display) considered “well-understood, routine, and conventional.”
Like independent claim 1, dependent claim 18 is similarly directed to the abstract idea of table arrangements, payment for a transaction, etc. (i.e., generating a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables; generating updated map display data based on a remapping; facilitating display of the updated map display data for facilitating payment for a transaction at a venue). Like independent claim 1, dependent claim 18 encompasses (a) “certain methods of organizing human activity” such as “economic principles or practices”; “commercial or legal interactions” such as “sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations”; and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions”; and (b) “mental processes”. With respect to claim 18, the claim also recites the abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts. Mathematical Concepts The claim recites a mathematical formula or calculation (wherein the location data is further generated based on a spatial averaging of pairwise distance estimates generated based on the beacon data received …..). Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. What applicant characterized as the “solution”/ “improvement” is limited to the underlying abstract idea (e.g., mathematical concepts).
(5) Applicant argues the claimed invention is similar to McRo.
Applicant appears to suggest the claimed invention is indicative of integration into a practical application because it provides a technical improvement/ McRo. See pgs. 9 and 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 08/31/26. Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s claim invention is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Applicant’s claimed invention amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract on a computer or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the nominal or tangential recitation of technology (e.g., (a) “system” comprising “a plurality of beacon transmitters”, “a plurality of beacon receivers” and a “processing system”. See at least claims 1 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22) is merely adding insignificant extra-solution solution activity to the judicial exception. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(g). Applicant’s claimed invention generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(h).
(6) Applicant argues the claimed invention is similar to Enfish.
Enfish v. Microsoft Corp. et al., No. 2015-1244 Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016 relates to an invention directed to a “self-referential” database. pg. 2 In contrast to a standard “relational model”, the “self-referential model” was found to have two unique features: (a) ”the self-referential model can store all entity types in a single table.” (b) “the self-referential model can define the table’s columns by rows in that same table.” pg. 6.
The court in Enfish concluded that the claims at issue were not directed to an “abstract idea” within the meaning of Alice. pg. 12.
In coming to it’s conclusion, the court in Enfish distinguished between two categories of claims. The first category of claims provides an “improvement to computer functionality” and/or “improvement in computer capabilities”. pg. 11. The second category of claims are directed to a “process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. pg. 11. In the second category claims are directed to “economic or other tasks for which the computer is used in it’s ordinary capacity.” pg. 12.
The court in Enfish found that the claimed invention was not abstract because it considered the claimed invention to fit within the first category of claims because it achieved “improvements” such as: (a) “allows for faster searching of data than would be possible with the relational model.” (b) “the self-referential model allows for more effective storage of data other than structured text, such as images and unstructured text.” (c) “the self-referential model allows more flexibility in configured the database.” pg. 7.
In contrast to the claims in Enfish that were not considered an “abstract idea” within the meaning of Alice, applicant’s claimed invention is similar to the second category of claims which the court in Enfish considers to embrace an “abstract idea”.
In the instant case: The claims recite, “….. transmit one of a plurality of wireless beacons conveying a unique identifier; ….. receive the plurality of wireless beacons transmitted by three or more of the plurality of beacon transmitters and ….. generate beacon data in response thereto that indicates the unique identifier identifiers conveyed by received wireless beacons of the plurality of wireless beacons; and ...... store ….. a table database that correlates the unique identifier associated with each of the plurality of wireless beacons to table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generate map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables on a map of the venue that includes labels of the table identifiers; generate, in response to the beacon data from the plurality of beacon receivers and based on the plurality of fixed locations corresponding to the plurality of beacon receivers, location data that indicates positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters, wherein the location data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data corresponding to wireless beacons transmitted by each of the plurality of beacon transmitters and received by a combination of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers; determine a current position of each of the plurality of tables utilizing the table database, the location data, and by associating the positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters to the table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generate updated map display data based on a remapping, that plots the current position of each of the plurality of tables on the map of the venue, that includes the labels of the table identifiers, wherein, responsive to the current position of at least one of the plurality of tables differing from the initial position of the at least one of the plurality of tables, the remapping causes a change in the table identifier associated with one or more of the beacon transmitters affixed to the at least one of the plurality of tables, repurposing the one or more beacon transmitters without pushing new data to the one or more beacon transmitters; and facilitate display of the updated map display data …..”. The steps are performed exclusively by a generic computer (i.e., "system”, etc.) with respect to claims 1 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22.
The steps or acts for which a generic computer is involved can be characterized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities. In particular, the steps pertain to routine: (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “….. transmit one of a plurality of wireless beacons conveying a unique identifier; ….. receive the plurality of wireless beacons transmitted by three or more of the plurality of beacon transmitters”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data storage (e.g., “...... store ….. a table database that correlates the unique identifier associated with each of the plurality of wireless beacons to table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (c) data processing (e.g., “….. generate beacon data in response thereto that indicates the unique identifier identifiers conveyed by received wireless beacons of the plurality of wireless beacons”; “generate map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables on a map of the venue that includes labels of the table identifiers; generate, in response to the beacon data from the plurality of beacon receivers and based on the plurality of fixed locations corresponding to the plurality of beacon receivers, location data that indicates positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters, wherein the location data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data corresponding to wireless beacons transmitted by each of the plurality of beacon transmitters and received by a combination of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers; determine a current position of each of the plurality of tables utilizing the table database, the location data, and by associating the positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters to the table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generate updated map display data based on a remapping, that plots the current position of each of the plurality of tables on the map of the venue, that includes the labels of the table identifiers, wherein, responsive to the current position of at least one of the plurality of tables differing from the initial position of the at least one of the plurality of tables, the remapping causes a change in the table identifier associated with one or more of the beacon transmitters affixed to the at least one of the plurality of tables, repurposing the one or more beacon transmitters without pushing new data to the one or more beacon transmitters”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (d) data display (e.g., “facilitate display of the updated map display data …..”, etc. step(s) as claimed). Thus, the claim limitations are directed to “economic or other tasks for which the computer is used in it’s ordinary capacity.”
Some limitations involve organizing human activities, because they are calculations and computations processing (e.g., “….. generate beacon data in response thereto that indicates the unique identifier identifiers conveyed by received wireless beacons of the plurality of wireless beacons”; “generate map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables on a map of the venue that includes labels of the table identifiers; generate, in response to the beacon data from the plurality of beacon receivers and based on the plurality of fixed locations corresponding to the plurality of beacon receivers, location data that indicates positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters, wherein the location data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data corresponding to wireless beacons transmitted by each of the plurality of beacon transmitters and received by a combination of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers; determine a current position of each of the plurality of tables utilizing the table database, the location data, and by associating the positions of each of the plurality of beacon transmitters to the table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generate updated map display data based on a remapping, that plots the current position of each of the plurality of tables on the map of the venue, that includes the labels of the table identifiers, wherein, responsive to the current position of at least one of the plurality of tables differing from the initial position of the at least one of the plurality of tables, the remapping causes a change in the table identifier associated with one or more of the beacon transmitters affixed to the at least one of the plurality of tables, repurposing the one or more beacon transmitters without pushing new data to the one or more beacon transmitters”) that may be performed using the mental activity of a human operator. Thus, the claim limitations are directed to a “process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.”
In summary, the rationale of Enfish differ from applicant’s claimed invention in many respects. First, Enfish was directed “self-referential” database that had unique features. In contrast, the components of applicant’s claimed invention are generic (e.g., “system” comprising “a plurality of beacon transmitters”, “a plurality of beacon receivers”, and “a processing system”). Although a “table database” is referenced in the claimed invention, the “table database” is merely used as a tool (e.g., “utilizing the table database”). Applicant’s claimed invention is silent regarding any specialized database performing any special or unique functions.
(7) Applicant argues Thales Visionix Inc.
Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States and Elbit Systems of America, LLC. Thales Visionix relates to an inertial tracking system for tracking the motion of an object relative to a moving reference frame. Pg. 2. Thales Visionix did not use a conventional approach to measuring inertial changes with respect to the earth, instead the platform (e.g., vehicle) inertial sensors directly measured the gravitational field in the platform frame. The court in Thales Visionix found the claimed invention provided advantages including increased accuracy with which inertial sensors measure a tracked object on a moving frame; and independent operation, without requiring other hardware on the moving platform that determines the orientation or position of the moving platform itself. Pg. 3-4.
Thales Visionix focused on the first step (e.g., “whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept” (such as an “abstract idea”)) of the Supreme Court’s Alice test. Pgs. 6 and 11. Thales distinguished between a first category of claims that were found “ineligible” based on the first step ((e.g., (a) Electronic Power Group. Pg. 6 ; and (b) Flook. Pg. 8.) and a second category of claims that were found “eligible” (e.g., (a) Rapid litigation Management Ltd.; (b) Enfish LLC; and (c) Diehr.). Pgs. 7-8.
The court found the first category of “ineligible” claims shared certain characteristics. For example, with respect to Electronic Power Group, “We have held claims ineligible as directed to an abstract idea when they merely collect electronic information, display information, or embody mental processes that could be performed by humans.” Pg. 6. For example, with respect to Flook, “The Supreme Court recognized that a mathematical formula like the Arrhenius equation is not itself patent eligible subject matter, even if limited to a particular technological environment or accompanied by ‘insignificant post-solution activity’”. Pg. 8. The second category of “eligible” claims were different. For example, Rapid Litigation did not claim a natural law itself, but a particular application of the ‘natural discovery to create a new and improved way of preserving [liver] cells for later use.’ Pg. 7. For example, Enfish enabled faster searching and more effective storage of data than prior methods and functioned differently than conventional databases. Pg. 7. For example, Diehr which although it used the well-known Arrhenius equation, improved upon prior art molding methods. Pgs. 7-8.
The claims in Thales Visionix were similar to the second category of claims and were found by the courts to be “eligible” because they used inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame. pg. 10. In contrast, applicant’s claimed invention is more similar to the first category of claims described in Thales Visionix which the court suggested was “ineligible” under Alice. For example, in the instant case, applicant’s claimed invention is similar to Electronic Power Group because it merely employs mental processes that could be performed by humans.
(8) Applicant argues the claimed invention was not considered “as a whole”.
Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention was not considered “as a whole” is not persuasive. All elements of applicant’s claimed invention have been considered “as a whole”. The elements directed to the abstract idea can be found as part of the 2(A), PRONG 1 analysis on pgs. 4 - 7 above. The additional elements can be found as part of the 2(A), PRONG 2 analysis on pg. 7 - 8 above. The inventive concept can be found as part of the 2(B) analysis on pgs. 8 - 9 above. The dependent claim analysis can be found on pgs. 9 - 11.
112
Please note the rejections withdrawn and maintained in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and relates to intelligent venue applications.
Sagboze, Konzi Olivier. "Real-time detection of attendance at a venue using mobile devices." PhD diss., Cape Peninsula University of Technology, 2017.
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 SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, 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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
