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
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Relying upon the language of claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) generation of a location map representing movable items, association of a service to a location depicted by said location map and updating the aforementioned steps upon determination of a change in the location of said movable items. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The recited computer elements (system comprising a memory and processing unit) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because steps recited in this claim are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions (e.g., determining, generating, and associating). Generic computer components performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Similar rationale applies to claims 6 and 11. Further, the method steps of claim 6,
are simply the organization and comparison of data which can be performed mentally and is an idea of itself; thus is directed to an abstract idea. The method of claim 6 is not integrated into a practical application for similar reasons as noted above for claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KASHIF SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3188. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 6:00 EST to 16:00 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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.
/KASHIF SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415