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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/2025 has been entered.
This office action is responsive to RCE filed on 11/18/2025. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,900,418. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter, perform similar method steps and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other inventions.
Application number: 18508771
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:generating, by one or more processors, a geo-fence that comprises a boundary that encompasses a region that includes a location of interest;dividing the region encompassed by the geo-fence into a set of cells, each cell among the set of cells representing an equal portion of the region;receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of requests to access media content associated with the location of interest located within the geo-fence from one or more devices located within the geo-fence;identifying a subset of the one or more devices located within a cell from among the one or more cells;determining a quantity of the subset of the one or more devices based on a portion of the plurality of requests received from the one or more devices located within the cell;calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence, the usage metric reflecting device activity within the cell; [[and]] determining the usage metric is below a threshold value: and adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric of the cell being below the threshold value.
Patent number: 11,900,4181. A computer-implemented method comprising:
causing display of a presentation of a set of search results;
receiving an input that selects a search result from among the set of search results, the search result corresponding with a location of interest;
generating, by one or more processors, a geo-fence based on the location of interest that corresponds with the selected search result, the geo-fence comprising a boundary that encompasses a region that includes the location of interest;
dividing the region encompassed by the geo-fence into a set of cells, each cell among the set of cells representing an equal portion of the region, wherein a quantity of the set of cells is based on a size of the geo-fence;
detecting, by one or more processors, a plurality of requests to access media content associated with the geo-fence from one or more devices located within the region encompassed by the geo-fence;
determining a distribution of a subset of the one or more devices located within a cell from among the one or more cells based on a portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence over a predefined period of time;
calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the distribution of the subset of the one or more devices over the predefined period of time;
determining that the usage metric of the cell is below a threshold value; and
adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric associated with the cell being below the threshold value.
8. A system comprising:a memory; andat least one hardware processor couple to the memory and comprising instructions that cause the system to perform operations comprising:generating, by one or more processors, a geo-fence that comprises a boundary that encompasses a region that includes a location of interest;dividing the region encompassed by the geo-fence into a set of cells, each cell among the set of cells representing an equal portion of the region;receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of requests to access media content associated with the location of interest located within the geo-fence from one or more devices located within the geo-fence;identifying a subset of the one or more devices located within a cell from among the one or more cells;determining a quantity of the subset of the one or more devices based on a portion of the plurality of requests received from the one or more devices located within the cell;calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence, the usage metric reflecting device activity within the cell; [[and]] determining the usage metric is below a threshold value; andadjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric of the cell being below the threshold value.
8. A memory; and
at least one hardware processor couple to the memory and comprising instructions that cause the system to perform operations comprising:
causing display of a presentation of a set of search results;
receiving an input that selects a search result from among the set of search results, the search result corresponding with a location of interest;
generating, by one or more processors, a geo-fence based on the location of interest that corresponds with the selected search result, the geo-fence comprising a boundary that encompasses a region that includes the location of interest;
dividing the region encompassed by the geo-fence into a set of cells, each cell among the set of cells representing an equal portion of the region, wherein a quantity of the set of cells is based on a size of the geo-fence;
detecting, by one or more processors, a plurality of requests to access media content associated with the geo-fence from one or more devices located within the region encompassed by the geo-fence;
determining a distribution of a subset of the one or more devices located within a cell from among the one or more cells based on a portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence over a predefined period of time;
calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the distribution of the subset of the one or more devices over the predefined period of time;
determining that the usage metric of the cell is below a threshold value; and
adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric associated with the cell being below the threshold value.
15. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations including:generating, by one or more processors, a geo-fence that comprises a boundary that encompasses a region that includes a location of interest;dividing the region encompassed by the geo-fence into a set of cells, each cell among the set of cells representing an equal portion of the region;receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of requests to access media content associated with the location of interest located within the geo-fence from one or more devices located within the geo-fence;identifying a subset of the one or more devices located within a cell from among the one or more cells;determining a quantity of the subset of the one or more devices based on a portion of the plurality of requests received from the one or more devices located within the cell;calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence, the usage metric reflecting device activity within the cell; [[and]] determining the usage metric is below a threshold value; andadjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric of the cell being below the threshold value.
15. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations including:
causing display of a presentation of a set of search results;
receiving an input that selects a search result from among the set of search results, the search result corresponding with a location of interest;
generating, by one or more processors, a geo-fence based on the location of interest that corresponds with the selected search result, the geo-fence comprising a boundary that encompasses a region that includes the location of interest;
dividing the region encompassed by the geo-fence into a set of cells, each cell among the set of cells representing an equal portion of the region, wherein a quantity of the set of cells is based on a size of the geo-fence;
detecting, by one or more processors, a plurality of requests to access media content associated with the geo-fence from one or more devices located within the region encompassed by the geo-fence;
determining a distribution of a subset of the one or more devices located within a cell from among the one or more cells based on a portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence over a predefined period of time;
calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the distribution of the subset of the one or more devices over the predefined period of time;
determining that the usage metric of the cell is below a threshold value; and
adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric associated with the cell being below the threshold value.
As to the independent claims:
Limitations presented in claims 2, 9, and 16 is an obvious variation of additional limitations presented in Patent No. 11,900,418 claim 1, 8, and 15.
Limitations presented in claim 6, 13, and 20 is an obvious variation of additional limitations presented in Patent No. 11,900,418 claim 1, 8, and 15.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the changes above in order to cover slightly broader limitations. Furthermore, the claimed elements perform the same function as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-20 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 8 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 15 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 8, and 15 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are directed to generating geofence comprises boundaries that encompasses a region that includes a location of the interest and determining and adjusting boundaries of the geofence based on usage metric. Specifically, claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s) generating, a geo-fence that comprises a boundary that encompasses a region that includes a location of interest; dividing the region encompassed by the geo-fence into a set of cells each cell among the set of cells representing an equal portion of the region; receiving, a plurality of requests to access media content associated with the location of interest located within the geo-fence from one or more devices located within the geo-fence; identifying a subset located within a cell from among the one or more cells; determining a quantity of the subset based on a portion of the plurality of requests received located within the cell; calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence, the usage metric reflecting device activity within the cell; determining the usage metric is below a threshold value; and adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric of the cell being below the threshold value, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
The Claim limitations are listed under Methods Of Organizing Human Activity, and grouped as following:
generating, a geo-fence that comprises a boundary that encompasses a region that includes a location of interest; dividing the region encompassed by the geo-fence into a set of cells each cell among the set of cells representing an equal portion of the region; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
receiving, a plurality of requests to access media content associated with the location of interest located within the geo-fence from one or more devices located within the geo-fence; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
identifying a subset located within a cell from among the one or more cells; determining a quantity of the subset based on a portion of the plurality of requests received located within the cell; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence, the usage metric reflecting device activity within the cell; determining the usage metric is below a threshold value; and which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric of the cell being below the threshold value; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as processors, devices, system, memory, processor, non transitory machine readable storage medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the processors, devices, system, memory, processor, non transitory machine readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of generating, a geo-fence that comprises a boundary that encompasses a region that includes a location of interest; dividing the region encompassed by the geo-fence into a set of cells each cell among the set of cells representing an equal portion of the region; receiving, a plurality of requests to access media content associated with the location of interest located within the geo-fence from one or more devices located within the geo-fence; identifying a subset located within a cell from among the one or more cells; determining a quantity of the subset based on a portion of the plurality of requests received located within the cell; calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence, the usage metric reflecting device activity within the cell; determining the usage metric is below a threshold value; and adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric of the cell being below the threshold value. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a processors, devices, system, memory, processor, non transitory machine readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of generating geofence comprises boundaries that encompasses a region that includes a location of the interest and determining and adjusting boundaries of the geofence based on usage metric. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the processors, devices, system, memory, processor, non transitory machine readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of generating, a geo-fence that comprises a boundary that encompasses a region that includes a location of interest; dividing the region encompassed by the geo-fence into a set of cells each cell among the set of cells representing an equal portion of the region; receiving, a plurality of requests to access media content associated with the location of interest located within the geo-fence from one or more devices located within the geo-fence; identifying a subset located within a cell from among the one or more cells; determining a quantity of the subset based on a portion of the plurality of requests received located within the cell; calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence, the usage metric reflecting device activity within the cell; determining the usage metric is below a threshold value; and adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric of the cell being below the threshold value. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of generating geofence comprises boundaries that encompasses a region that includes a location of the interest and determining and adjusting boundaries of the geofence based on usage metric. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further describe the abstract idea of generating geofence comprises boundaries that encompasses a region that includes a location of the interest and determining and adjusting boundaries of the geofence based on usage metric. Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a system, non transitory machine readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of generating geofence comprises boundaries that encompasses a region that includes a location of the interest and determining and adjusting boundaries of the geofence based on usage metric. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, system, non transitory machine readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of wherein the adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence based on the usage metric includes: reducing the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric of the cell; wherein the media content comprises one or more of image data, video data, audio data, and textual data; wherein the calculating the usage metric of the cell based on the portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence includes: determining a rate of the portion of the plurality of requests; and calculating the usage metric based on the rate; wherein boundary of the geo-fence comprises a polygonal shape; wherein the adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence based on the usage metric includes: determining the usage metric is below a threshold value; and adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence responsive to determining that the usage metric is below the threshold value; wherein the threshold value is calculated based on historical usage metrics associated with the geo-fence. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of generating geofence comprises boundaries that encompasses a region that includes a location of the interest and determining and adjusting boundaries of the geofence based on usage metric. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Prior Art
4. As for the amendment submitted on 11/18/2025, the Office is unaware of any references that teach the combination of limitations found in the claims.
In reference to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the Office is unaware of any references that teach, individually or without an unreasonable combination of references, the combination of limitations steps found in the claims especially limitation that says: “identifying a subset of the one or more devices located within a cell from among the one or more cells; determining a quantity of the subset of the one or more devices based on a portion of the plurality of requests received from the one or more devices located within the cell; calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence, the usage metric reflecting device activity within the cell; determining the usage metric is below a threshold value: and adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric of the cell being below the threshold value.”. No reference found that would teach the above limitation(s).
The first most relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is 9641972. It teaches identifying users within geographic location and presenting content items and a threshold distance of physical location, but it does not teach the threshold being the usage metric of the cell that included requests to access the media content by users within the cell. Therefore, it lacks the combination of claimed elements as claimed by the independent claims.
The second most relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is/are US20150341747A1. It teaches determining geographic areas having threshold level of content consumption and deploying dynamic geo fence to contain these geographic area, but it is missing the feature of if the usage metric is below a threshold value, it will adjust the boundary of the geofence to exclude the cell based on the usage area of the cell being below the threshold value. Therefore, it lacks the combination of claimed elements as claimed by the independent claims.
The third most relevant prior art found by the Examiner is 20150095355. It teaches selecting boundaries for a geofence based on event being in the area, but its missing some of the features of the limitation of receiving, determining and adjusting boundaries… Therefore, it lacks the combination of claimed elements as claimed by the independent claims.
All these references listed above teaches some of the features in the limitations of the claim but when combining it becomes not obvious and the references would teach the claim as a whole.
Examiner note: none of the references or combined references teach the combination of limitations of claim 1, 8, and 15 or no reference found that would teaches the combination of limitations of claim 1, 8, and 15, especially claim limitations: identifying a subset of the one or more devices located within a cell from among the one or more cells; determining a quantity of the subset of the one or more devices based on a portion of the plurality of requests received from the one or more devices located within the cell; calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence, the usage metric reflecting device activity within the cell; determining the usage metric is below a threshold value: and adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric of the cell being below the threshold value, and which is an idea of generating a geofence into cells with equal regions based on one or more devices located within the cell and calculating usage metric of cell based on plurality of requests to access media content associated with the geofence and adjusting the boundary of the geofence to exclude the cell based on usage metric being below the threshold value.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
NPL Reference
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL “Geofencing 2.0: Taking Location-based Notifications to the Next Level” describes “Recently, Location-based Services (LBS) became proactive by supporting smart notifications in case the user enters or leaves a specific geographical area, well-known as Geofencing. However, different geofences cannot be temporally related to each other. Therefore, we introduce a novel method to formalize sophisticated Geofencing scenarios as state and transition based geofence models. Such a model considers temporal relations between geofences as well as duration constraints for the time being within a geofence or in transition between geofences. These are two highly important aspects in order to cover sophisticated scenarios in which a notification should be triggered only in case the user crosses multiple geofences in a defined temporal order or leaves a geofence after a certain amount of time. As a proof of concept, we introduce a prototype of a suitable user interface for designing complex geofence models in conjunction with the corresponding proactive LBS”.
Pertinent Art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference# 20160321765. teaches similar invention which describes a computer-implemented method performed by a mobile communication device for facilitating the completion of activities by a user, where the mobile communication device is in communication with a server that is in turn in communication with a datastore, the datastore stores information identifying a plurality of activities, a reward associated with completion of each of the activities, and an account associated with the user, the method comprising: receiving information identifying an activity using near field communication; sending a request over a communications network to the server to store in the datastore associated with the user's account an indication of completion of the activity, wherein the request includes information identifying the activity; and receiving over the communications network from the server confirmation that the user's account in the datastore has been updated with a reward associated with completion of the activity.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of generating geofence comprises boundaries that encompasses a region that includes a location of the interest and determining and adjusting boundaries of the geofence based on usage metric which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)), (MPEP § 2106.04).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to generating geofence comprises boundaries that encompasses a region that includes a location of the interest and determining and adjusting boundaries of the geofence based on usage metric does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “processors, devices, system, memory, processor, non transitory machine readable storage medium” perform(s) the steps or functions of generating, a geo-fence that comprises a boundary that encompasses a region that includes a location of interest; dividing the region encompassed by the geo-fence into a set of cells each cell among the set of cells representing an equal portion of the region; receiving, a plurality of requests to access media content associated with the location of interest located within the geo-fence from one or more devices located within the geo-fence; identifying a subset located within a cell from among the one or more cells; determining a quantity of the subset based on a portion of the plurality of requests received located within the cell; calculating a usage metric of the cell based on the portion of the plurality of requests to access the media content associated with the geo-fence, the usage metric reflecting device activity within the cell; determining the usage metric is below a threshold value; and adjusting the boundary of the geo-fence to exclude the cell based on the usage metric of the cell being below the threshold value. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to generating geofence comprises boundaries that encompasses a region that includes a location of the interest and determining and adjusting boundaries of the geofence based on usage metric does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “processors, devices, system, memory, processor, non transitory machine readable storage medium” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of generating geofence comprises boundaries that encompasses a region that includes a location of the interest and determining and adjusting boundaries of the geofence based on usage metric. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAREK ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (571) 272-9638. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex Mon - Thur 7-7:00 and Fri 7-4:00.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621B