Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed January 8, 2026 has been entered. Claim 20 is newly cancelled. Claims 1-19 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-19 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 claims contain 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
extract data points for zoning from the set of validated responses, wherein the data points comprise scores computed via natural language processing on the user response information and associated embedded location metadata; and
apply a machine learning model trained on historical response datasets to cluster the data points for zoning into zones based on similarity of scores and proximity of a zone to the location metadata, wherein the machine learning model iteratively updates zone boundaries as new responses are received.
The specification does not appear to provide sufficient support for these limitations. Specifically, the specification does not appear to provide support for the “data points” comprising “scores” computed via natural language processing on the user response information, as recited in limitation A. Regarding the generation of data points, paragraph 46 of the specification states, “At step 310, the system uses data received in the responses to identify certain data points useable in the generation of one or more zone maps. One main data point would be the answers to the questions provided in the responses. However, the system may also further use other information contained in the responses as well, such as time of submission of a response, geolocation information, device type used to submit response, IP address, phone number, or any combination thereof.” However, the specification does not mention any process for generating a “score” using natural language processing techniques. Rather, the specification simply states that the data points are generated based on the data received in the responses. Similarly, because the specification does not provide support for the generation of “scores” recited in limitation A, the specification also does not provide support for clustering the data points based on a similarity of the scores, as recited in limitation B. Paragraph 50 of the specification describes a process for generating “zone maps” based on the data points included in the responses. However, the specification does not provide support for clustering the data points based on a similarity of scores.
Since claim 12 has the substantially same issue as claim 1, claim 12 is rejected for the grounds and rationale used to reject claim 1. Since claims 2-11 and 13-19 include the respective limitations of claims 1 and 12, these claims are rejected for the grounds and rationale used to reject claims 1 and 12. Appropriate correction or clarification of these claims is required. No new matter may be added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and does not include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 and October 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Step 1
7. Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 12-19) and a machine (claims 1-11); where the machine is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process (See e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
8. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
receive a request to generate a message, wherein the request to generate a message comprises recipient data, including a location data identified in [[a location-based service selected from the group comprising of global positioning system tracking service, cellular triangulation service or cell tower identification service]], and message information specifying a query for user response information;
identify a plurality of recipients, based at least in part on the recipient data by filtering potential recipients according to geolocation processing of the location data contained in the recipient data;
generate a message, based at least in part on the message information;
receive a set of responses, [[via said wireless network]], from at least a portion of said [electronic communication devices]] of said plurality of recipients, wherein each response includes embedded location metadata from said [[electronic communication devices]]; and
validate each response of said set of responses by cross-referencing the embedded location metadata with the location data, resulting in a set of validated responses;
extract data points for zoning from the set of validated responses, wherein the data points comprise scores computed [[via natural language processing]] on the user response information and associated embedded location metadata;
identify, from content in each validated response in said set of validated responses, data points for generation of a zone map; and
generate a zone map, based at least in part on the data points for generation of a zone map.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices and/or commercial interactions (e.g., zoning geographic regions for insurance/commercial purposes).
Step 2A, Prong 2
9. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which claim 1 is directed does not include limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the limitations of claim 1 also recite generic computer components (e.g., one or more hardware processors configured by machine readable instructions; a location-based service selected from the group comprising of global positioning system tracking service, cellular triangulation service or cell tower identification service; wireless network; natural language processing; a machine learning model; a first graphical user interface on a display component of an electronic communication devices; and a second graphical user interface on a display component of a secondary electronic communication device). In particular, the recited features of the abstract idea are merely being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In other words, the additional elements are simply used as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation, “apply a machine learning model trained on historical response datasets to cluster the data points for zoning into zones based on similarity of scores and proximity of a zone to the location metadata, wherein the machine learning model iteratively updates zone boundaries as new responses are received.” This limitation simply states that the system uses a machine learning model to cluster the data points and update the zone boundaries. However, the claim does not provide any technical detail regarding how the machine learning model is trained and/or implemented to provide the desired output. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely applying generic machine learning technology to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 also recites the following limitations:
transmit said message in a machine readable format, via a wireless network to be displayed on a first graphical user interface on a display component of an electronic communication devices of said plurality of recipients; and
transmit said zone map in a machine readable format, via the wireless network, to be displayed on a second graphical user interface on a display component of a secondary electronic communication device.
These limitations simply state that the system displays various information on interfaces of a plurality of electronic communication devices. However, the claim does not provide significant technical detail regarding how the information is displayed. Therefore, these limitations amounts to no more than merely outputting/displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Thus, claim 1 does not include any limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As a result, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
10. Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements of claim 1 are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the recited additional elements (e.g., one or more hardware processors configured by machine readable instructions; a location-based service selected from the group comprising of global positioning system tracking service, cellular triangulation service or cell tower identification service; wireless network; natural language processing; a machine learning model; a first graphical user interface on a display component of an electronic communication devices; and a second graphical user interface on a display component of a secondary electronic communication device), do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality such that they are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (See also e.g., applicant’s Specification at least Paragraphs 54-60).
Additionally, the following limitation identified above as insignificant extra-solution activity (merely outputting/displaying data) has been revaluated in Step 2B:
transmit said message in a machine readable format, via a wireless network to be displayed on a first graphical user interface on a display component of an electronic communication devices of said plurality of recipients; and
transmit said zone map in a machine readable format, via the wireless network, to be displayed on a second graphical user interface on a display component of a secondary electronic communication device.
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of merely outputting/displaying data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Thus, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additional Independent Claims
11. Independent claim 12 is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claim 12 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 1. However, the primary difference between claims 12 and 1 is that claim 12 is drafted as a method rather than as a system. Similarly, as described above regarding claim 1, claim 12 recites generic computer components (e.g., a communication module and one or more processors; a location-based service selected from the group comprising of global positioning system tracking service, cellular triangulation service or cell tower identification service; wireless network; natural language processing; a machine learning model; a first graphical user interface on a display component of an electronic communication devices; and a second graphical user interface on a display component of a secondary electronic communication device) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since the same analysis should be used for claims 1 and 12, claim 12 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Dependent Claims
12. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claims 2 and 13 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., generating an action response plan, and providing the action response plan to a user) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, namely zoning geographic regions for insurance/commercial purposes, as described above regarding claim 1.
Claims 3 and 14 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., receiving updated data regarding the implementation of the action response plan, and updating a data set based on the received data) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, namely zoning geographic regions for insurance/commercial purposes, as described above regarding claim 1.
Claims 4-7 and 15-18 simply state that the model data is used by a machine learning model or an artificial intelligence model in order to generate the action response plan and the zone maps. However, the claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the machine learning model and/or the artificial intelligence model are implemented to produce the action response plan and the zone maps. Therefore, these limitations amount to no more than simply applying generic machine learning and artificial intelligence technology to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 8 and 19 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., generating a second action response plan based on updated responses, and providing the updated response plan to the user) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, namely zoning geographic regions for insurance/commercial purposes, as described above regarding claim 1.
Claims 9-11 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., generating insurance policy rates for the identified zones, updating the zone map based on updated responses, and updating the insurance policy rates based on the updated zone map) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, namely zoning geographic regions for insurance/commercial purposes, as described above regarding claim 1.
Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments filed January 8, 2026 have been fully considered.
Arguments Regarding Double Patenting
14. The prior rejection of claims 1-20 under Double Patenting has been withdrawn in response to the applicant’s claim amendments. The claims have been sufficiently differentiated from the claims of the co-pending application.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101
15. Applicant’s arguments (Amendment, Pgs. 7-8) concerning the prior rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive for the following reasons. Under the prior and current 101 analysis under 2019 PEG, the amended claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements. The abstract idea has been restated herein in line with the 2019 PEG guidance and the amended claims. Applicant is directed to the above full Alice/Mayo analysis in the 101 rejection.
Additionally, on page 8 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “On the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but to a technological solution for automated, location-verified response tracking utilizing wireless networks and location tracking systems. Unlike generic data collection (e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), the ordered combination integrates specific tech…” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner notes that the recitation of technological features within the claim does not prevent the claim from reciting an abstract idea. While the examiner agrees that the claim recites additional elements that fall outside of the abstract idea, the claim recites limitations which do fall under at least one of the categories of abstract ideas defined in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Additionally, on page 8 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “On the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are directed to a practical application by improving computer/network functionality, including through the use of: i) geolocation processing/filtering to reduce irrelevant transmissions and conserving bandwidth; ii) metadata validation to ensure data integrity in wireless responses; iii) iterative ML to update and enable adaptive zoning without full recomputation and optimizing for new data streams; and iv) GUI transmission and display on primary/secondary devices to facilitate actionable visualization. This solves the technical problem of inaccurate, static zoning in dynamic communication systems.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the claims do not recite any limitations that amounts to a technical improvement to any of the features identified by the applicant. For example, as noted in the 101 rejection above, the claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the machine learning model is trained and/or implemented to provide the desired output. Rather, the claims simply states that the machine learning model clusters the metadata based on the scores and metadata, and that the model iteratively updates the zone boundaries. Such limitations do not provide an indication of an improvement to the functioning of the model itself. Rather, they simply apply a generic model to implement the abstract idea on a computer. A similar argument can be made for the additional technical features recited in the claim.
Additionally, on page 8 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “On the Step 2B analysis, the claims add “significantly more” via these specific, unconventional elements, not routine/generic (Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). The combination of location based services, natural language processing, iterative ML, and multiple GUI displays is neither well-understood nor conventional.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the claims do not recite any limitation that amounts to an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, the claims simply recite the use of generic computer-related components to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102/103
16. All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in response to the applicant’s claim amendments. A combination of prior art references could not be identified to reasonably teach the specific combination of limitations recited in the independent claims.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gokhale (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190050449): Describes systems and a method for creating intelligent context aware interlinked zones for a map using at least one selected from the set comprising a plurality of predefined context parameters and historical data.
Chidlovskii (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20140089036): Describes a system and method for dynamic zoning. The system finds particular application in the visualization of variable zones of a city, each zone having a different travel demand on a transportation network.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D NEWLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/WILLIAM D NEWLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights