DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-21 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 22-24 have been added, and are rejected.
Claims 3, 11, 14, and 18 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/22/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/22/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 11-12 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception and integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by reciting a predictive, event-responsive control mechanism that dictates when and how the system is permitted to act, such as by defining interrelated functional constraint that impose meaning constraints to the abstract idea. The Applicant argues that the additional claim elements of generating a virtual boundary that identifies an area of interest, identify a rentable unit within the area of interest, generate a rental price prediction, determine whether that predictions satisfies a threshold, and generating a personalized rental recommendation is a workflow that is not inherent to any alleged abstract idea. On page 13, it is argued that the additional claim elements require that event-responsive geospatial computations are performed in a manner that dynamically defines an area of interest and constrains the universe of rentable units that are considered. The claim limitation of “in response to determining that the rental price prediction satisfies the predefined rental price threshold, generating, by the prospect engine and based on the rental price prediction, a personalized rental recommendation for the rentable unit for a terminal entity” defines a condition under which downstream system actions occur and the specific actions that are taken, and recite a predictive control architecture in which pricing analytics directly control system outputs and communication behavior. It is alleged that the suppressing of prompts that do not satisfy the predefined threshold reduce unnecessary communications, preventing mispriced listings, and enabling timely, event-responsive rental opportunities without manual intervention.
On pages 14-15, the Applicant argues that existing digital rental platforms are predominantly terminal-entity initiated systems that rely on user-generated listings and require manual monitoring of external information sources and are incapable of autonomously identifying time-sensitive, geographically relevant rental opportunities or dynamically pricing rentals during a period of fluctuating demand, and the claims provide a real-time, automated rental optimization system that operates independently of manual user activity. On pages 15-16, the Applicant argues that the claims provide a combination of elements that are not well-understood, conventional, or routine, and provide technical solutions to technical problems, and improves a technical field.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The generating of a virtual boundary that identifies an area of interest, identify a rentable unit within the area of interest, generate a rental price prediction, determine whether that predictions satisfies a threshold, and generating a personalized rental recommendation does not represent any technical undertaking. These are all steps within the abstract idea of recommending rental units. While the boundary may be virtual, this is no different than determining an area and marking it on a map of an area of interest. There is no recitation of any technical geospatial process that generates a boundary. Generating rental price predictions, determining whether it satisfies a threshold, and generating a personalized rental recommendation are commercial activities of rental recommendations, and are not inherent to any technology. These are commercial activities, and are an abstract idea. There are not particular computations recited in the claims or disclosed in the specification about the generating of the virtual boundary, and as discussed above, merely represents a user defining an area that they would want to consider, similar to drawing a boundary on a map or inputting a specific zipcode or city of interest in searching for accomodations or venues. The “in response to determining that the rental price prediction satisfies the predefined rental price threshold, generating, by the prospect engine and based on the rental price prediction, a personalized rental recommendation for the rentable unit for a terminal entity” does not represent any system actions of a computer system or any technical functionality, but merely represent conditional aspects of the abstract idea to determine whether to recommend a rental unit or not. Any improvements to computational resources or bandwidth of unnecessary communications are not from a changed or improved ability of a computer, but merely from a more efficient abstract idea, and these benefits would not exist in any other application. Preventing mispriced listings, and enabling timely, event-responsive rental opportunities without manual intervention are not technical activities, but commercial activities and commercial problems that are merely automated on a computer. The claims merely apply a computer to the abstract idea to automate activities of a user in determining rentals, and implement commercial activities on a computing device. Pricing and optimizing rentals are sales activities and unrelated to any technology. The claims may not be well-known, routine, and conventional, but only within the abstract idea itself. Generic computing components are merely applied to the abstract idea to automate the abstract idea on a computer.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/22/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior art for the reasons as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 21 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 22 are directed to an apparatus. Claims 17, 19-20, and 23-24 are directed to a computer program product, which is an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-24 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of providing rental recommendations based on an event:
detecting, in real-time, an occurrence of a trigger event, wherein (a) the trigger event within a monitored data environment corresponds to a change in conditions of a geographical region and (b) the trigger event is associated with a trigger event attribute set, that includes a trigger event type and one or more trigger event type attributes;
in response to detecting the trigger event, determining, based on the trigger event attribute set, a geographic location corresponding to the trigger event;
generating, based on the trigger event attribute set, a boundary that defines an area of interest;
identifying a rentable unit within the area of interest that corresponds to a trigger event type attribute of the one or more trigger event type attributes;
generating, based on the trigger event attribute set, a rental price prediction for the rentable unit;
in response whether the rental price prediction satisfies a predefined rental price threshold, generating, based on the rental price prediction, a personalized rental recommendation for the rentable unit for a terminal entity;
automatically outputting a rental prompt to the terminal entity based on the personalized recommendation.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for providing rental recommendations based on an event. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to identifying rentable units in an area of interest by an event to recommend to a user based on a price, which is an advertising and marketing activity. Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 recites additional elements, such as:
event monitoring engine;
prospect engine;
communications hardware;
virtual boundary;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite various engines and communications hardware, the engines are described in the specification as software within the apparatus, which is a generic computer. Specification paragraphs [0041] and [0043] disclose the engines may utilize a processor, memory, or any other hardware component included in the apparatus. Specification paragraphs [0035-0039] discloses the apparatus as merely including a processor and memory, the components being any one or more of a list of generic components. Specification paragraph [0039] also discloses the communications hardware as any means such as a device or circuitry in either hardware or a combination of hardware and software that is configured to receive/transmit data. As such, it is evident that the additional elements are generic computing components that are being leveraged to provide a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 9 (apparatus): Claim 9 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 9 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17 (computer program product): Claim 17 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 17 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-24 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the algorithm of providing rental recommendations based on an event, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-24 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-24 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-24 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (e.g., a computational engine and a set of data environments (claim 4); a database; a predictive analytics machine learning model from a set of trained predictive analytics machine learning models (claim 5)); however, the additional elements of claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-24 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-24 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-24 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-24 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Claims Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-24 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of the prior art, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as set forth above.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-24 are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 recites the claimed features of a method comprising:
detecting, by an event monitoring engine and in real-time, an occurrence of a trigger event within a monitored dated environment, wherein (a) the trigger event corresponds to a change in condition of a geographical region and (b) the trigger event is associated with a trigger event attribute set that includes a trigger event type and one or more trigger event type attributes;
in response to detecting the trigger event, determining, by the event monitoring engine and based on the trigger event attribute set, a geographic location corresponding to the trigger event;
generating, by the event monitoring engine and based on the trigger event attribute set, a virtual boundary that defines an area of interest;
While the individual limitations may be disclosed in the prior art, the claims as a whole are not disclosed in the prior art to anticipate or render the claims obvious, as discussed below.
The closest prior art was found to be as follows:
Deak (US 20170358022 A1) discloses [0046] – “a recommendation of content for the destination location may be generated. The content may be identified as a social network profile (e.g., a social network profile of a local restaurant), a coupon for a local business, hotel booking functionality (e.g., a link to a hotel booking app), car rental functionality (e.g., a link to a car rental website), a website (e.g., search results of travel activities at the destination location), an article, a video, an image, a textual message, a menu and table reservation functionality for a restaurant, task completion functionality (e.g., functionality to book a jet skiing experience), etc. The content may be selected based upon whether the user is the personal air flight traveler or the business air flight traveler. For example, vacation content may be identified as the content when the user is the personal air flight traveler (e.g., a recommendation for a local tiki bar, a jungle tour, a monument, etc.). Business trip content may be identified as the content when the user is the business air flight traveler (e.g., directions to an office supply store, restaurants near a hotel district, car rental information, internet hotspots, coffee shops, directions to a convention center hosting a business event, etc.)”.
While Deak also discloses identifying an area of interest (destination location) and rentable units within the area, and then generating rental recommendations, Deak does not disclose “a trigger event within a monitored data environment”, and the identifying of a geographic location (destination location) is not in response to detecting a trigger event, as recited in the present claims.
Watts (US 20200372556 A1) discloses [0085] – “service request platform 109 may select a low-priced vehicle, e.g., total rental cost within a user's budget, that is closest to the user location, e.g., current location or pick-up location, and is most suitable for transporting the items. Subsequently, the user is presented with a total cost estimate for the service. Once, the user accepts the estimated cost for the service, the request for service is processed and the service provider is notified, e.g., the selected low-priced vehicle is alerted of a new service request”.
While Watts discloses determining an estimated cost (rental price prediction), and comparing it to a threshold (budget), Watts does not disclose other limitations of the claim.
Hartmann (US 2008154655 A1) discloses [0055] – “if the original travel product is a hotel package purchased with the understanding that weather at the selected destination (i.e. the hotel location) would include daytime high temperatures of at least 80 degrees, but later (and before the departure date) the predicted high temperature at the hotel drops to 70 degrees, the system may offer to the user a change in reservation to a second hotel (corresponding to a nearby or completely different destination, for example) having a predicted weather condition substantially equivalent to the selected weather condition”.
Hartman discloses detecting a trigger event (weather change) within a monitored data environment that corresponds to a change in conditions of a geographic region (weather at the location of booking), but as it monitors the weather at a place that was already booked, a geographic location corresponding to the trigger event is not determined in response to the trigger event. There is also no disclosure regarding any boundary or perimeter defining an area of interest.
Beaurepaire (US 20200242945 A1) discloses [0046] – “the mapping module 203 first defines a geofenced area around the POI to compute or cluster the one or more shared vehicle events that have occurred within a threshold proximity of the POI. By way of example, the geofenced area may be a zone, a perimeter, and/or a boundary set or assigned around or surrounding a central point (e.g., the POI). In one instance, the mapping module 203 can contextually define the radius of the geofenced area or the mapping module 201 may adapt the area in situations where a circle is not the most appropriate way of measuring such information. In one embodiment, the number and proximity of shared vehicles to the POI determines the specific shape of the geofence and/or the geofenced area”.
While Beaurepaire discloses generating a boundary of an area, the art is directed to shared vehicles, and is not quite analogous to rental recommendations, and the generating of a boundary is not in response to a trigger event or for determining any rental units in that area.
Dalton (US 20110191284 A1) discloses [0055] – “the event likelihood component 25 can interact with a signature transfer component 92, which allows the system or a user to take event signatures (e.g., armed robbery signature) and apply it to a different area of interest as held or entered into the boundary component database 14. In this way, the invention contemplates that events which occur in a separate geographic region (e.g., bank robberies in Richmond, Va.) can be used to determine or predict similar events in another region”.
Dalton is directed to a modeling system to forecast likelihood of desirable events that will determine a boundary around an area of interest. However, this is not analogous to any application of rental units, and is not in response to a trigger event.
PTO-Reference U (see PTO-892 Reference U mailed on 8/18/2025) discloses a trip recommender and planner that uses primary profiling of the user based on preceding travels and explicit responses to provide recommendations of the area of the trip, and providing an itinerary.
However, PTO-Reference U does not disclose detecting a trigger event, a geographic location corresponding to the trigger event, or generating a boundary defining an area of interest based on the trigger event attribute set.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 in combination that overcome the prior art are:
detecting, by an event monitoring engine and in real-time, an occurrence of a trigger event within a monitored dated environment, wherein (a) the trigger event corresponds to a change in condition of a geographical region and (b) the trigger event is associated with a trigger event attribute set that includes a trigger event type and one or more trigger event type attributes;
in response to detecting the trigger event, determining, by the event monitoring engine and based on the trigger event attribute set, a geographic location corresponding to the trigger event;
generating, by the event monitoring engine and based on the trigger event attribute set, a virtual boundary that defines an area of interest;
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-24 are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 7:00pm 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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 7/1/2026
Prosecution Insights