DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for continued examination of application 18/476,772 (09/28/23) filed on 03/18/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites, “The system of claim, wherein the table database indicates
The claims dependency has been deleted/ omitted.
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 - 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 and generating beacon data in response thereto that indicates the unique identifier associated with each of the three or more of the plurality of wireless beacons; and storing a table database that correlates the unique identifier associated with each the plurality of wireless beacons to table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generating a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables, the map display data superimposed on a map and including labels of the table identifiers; generating, in response to the beacon data 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 beacon transmitters, wherein the location data for each of the plurality beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters received from 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 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, the updated map display data superimposed on the map and including 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 and generating beacon data in response thereto that indicates the unique identifier associated with each of the three or more of the plurality of wireless beacons; and storing a table database that correlates the unique identifier associated with each the plurality of wireless beacons to table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generating a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables, the map display data superimposed on a map and including labels of the table identifiers; generating, in response to the beacon data 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 beacon transmitters, wherein the location data for each of the plurality beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters received from 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 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, the updated map display data superimposed on the map and including 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 and generating beacon data in response thereto that indicates the unique identifier associated with each of the three or more of the plurality of wireless beacons; and storing a table database that correlates the unique identifier associated with each the plurality of wireless beacons to table identifiers corresponding to the plurality of tables; generating a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables, the map display data superimposed on a map and including labels of the table identifiers; generating, in response to the beacon data 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 beacon transmitters, wherein the location data for each of the plurality beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters received from 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 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, the updated map display data superimposed on the map and including 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 the unique identifier associated with each of the three or more of the plurality of wireless beacons,” and
“wherein the location data for each of the plurality beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters received from 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 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 1 recites, “generate a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables, the map display data superimposed on a map and including labels of the table identifiers;” and
“generate updated map display data based on a remapping, that plots the current position of each of the plurality of tables, the updated map display data superimposed on the map and including the labels of the table identifiers, …..”
Although there appears to be support in applicant’s specification for “map display data” placed “on a map of the venue”, it is unclear where support may be found for the “map display data” being “superimposed on”. The word “on” indicates mere placement however “superimposed on” means placing something over another so that both remain visible or distinct. To “superimpose on” requires a higher level of layering or transparency. See also, para. [0079] [0084] [0345] of applicant’s specification as filed 09/28/23.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the location data for each one of the plurality 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 whether the requirement that it occurs “invisibly” or “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 14 (claim 15 based on it’s dependency) recites, “wherein at least one of the plurality of tables is bilaterally symmetrical”.
It is unclear where support may be found for this limitation in 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 (claims 2 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22 based on their dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (claims 2 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22 based on their dependency) recites the limitation "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 the unique identifier associated with each of the three or more of the plurality of wireless beacons;”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the three or more of the plurality of wireless beacons” in the claim. The claim is unclear and indefinite because there is an antecedent basis and/ or consistent terminology problem (e.g., “plurality of wireless beacons” vs. “three or more of the plurality of beacon transmitters” vs. “the three or more of the plurality of wireless beacons”).
Claim 1 (claims 2 - 12, 14 - 19 and 21 - 22 based on their dependency) recites the limitation " 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 beacon transmitters, wherein the location data for each of the plurality beacon transmitters is generated based on distance estimates generated based on the beacon data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters received from a combination of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers;".
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the beacon data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters received from a combination of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers in the claim”. The claim is unclear and indefinite because there is an antecedent basis and/ or consistent terminology problem (e.g., (a) The prior reference to “beacon data” is beacon data “that indicates the unique identifier associated with each of the three or more of the plurality of wireless beacons”, not “beacon data for each of the plurality of beacon transmitters” as recited here. (b) Also, the “beacon data” previously referenced was generated by the “plurality of beacon receivers”, but it was never “received from a combination of three or more of the plurality of beacon receivers” as recited here.).
NOTE: The particular language used is not required, but intended as an aide to the applicant in overcoming one or more of the objections and/ or rejections noted in this office action. Alternative language may be proposed. Please indicate where support may be found in the specification for any amendments made.
Response to Arguments
(1)Applicant argues the claimed invention is 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 9/28/25) 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) 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 a map display data that plots an initial position of each of the plurality of tables, the map display data superimposed on a map and including 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 …..”;) 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 improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (i.e., “improves the technology of location system by using cloud logic, remappings and/or other mechanisms to make changes to the database that can 're-purpose’ a beacon without needing to push new data into the beacon transmitter 102 itself”.; and “The Applicant notes that the amended claims now specifically recite these claimed improvements to the technology of location systems.” See pgs. 10 and 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 6/13/25.) suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
The “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).
(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)).
Applicant argues the claimed invention is not “well-understood, routine and conventional”.
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 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights