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 .
Application, submitted on 02/27/2024, has been received, entered, and made of record. Currently, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method. Thus, the claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 8-14 are directed to a system, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which falls within the “manufacture” category, one of the statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2A, Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
The Examiner has identified independent claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 8 and 15.
Claim 1 recites “determining one or more mobile computing devices associated with an IP address, processing historical data comprising location data identifying geographical coordinates, and determining an establishment based on the geographical coordinates.” A broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Specifically, determining one or more mobile computing devices associated with an IP address, processing historical data comprising location data identifying geographical coordinates, and determining an establishment based on the geographical coordinates, may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. For example, a human can determine one or more mobile computing devices associated with an IP address corresponding to a recipient device by observation and evaluation of data; judge if processing historical data comprise location data identifying geographical coordinates by manipulating data, and determine an establishment based on the geographical coordinates. Thus, the limitations encompass observing data and performing an evaluation or judgment.
In Step 2A, Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional element of “receiving an internet Protocol (IP) address”. However, this limitations is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, as such, this limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. This limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
In Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the limitations are at best mere instructions which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or outputting data and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 covers subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above. Therefore, the claim as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, does not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 8 and 15; and hence the claims 8 and 15 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Beyond the abstract idea, claims 8 and 15 also recite additional elements of “a system” and “a processor” for performing the steps. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receive interaction data over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. That is, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to “Mental Processes” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ramesh, US 2024/0179362 A1) in view of Herring et al. (hereinafter referred to as Herring, US 2016/0006628 A1).
Referring to claim 1, Ramesh discloses a method comprising:
receiving an internet protocol (IP) address corresponding to a recipient device ([0041]) (Note: a computing system receives an IP address of a media player (recipient device) when the control server 112 engages in IP-based communications with the media player 100);
determining one or more mobile computing devices associated with the IP address, wherein the one or more mobile computing devices are indicated as having previously established an internet connection via the IP address ([0003]-[0004], [0024], [0030], and [0043]) (Note: the computing system determines one or more media-presentation devices when connected to the media-presentation device associated with the IP address; wherein one or more media-presentation devices may have previously performed an internet connection via the IP address);
processing data received from the one or more mobile computing devices, wherein the data comprises location data identifying geographical coordinates at which the one or more mobile computing devices were located while connected to the internet via the IP address ([0034]-[0039], and [0043]) (Note: the computing system processes data received from the media-presentation devices when the media-player device has moved from a home location of the media-player device to a visited location, wherein the data comprises location data identifying locations (geographical coordinates) at which the one or more media-presentation devices were located); and
determining an establishment at which the recipient device is located based on the geographical coordinates, wherein the establishment is located physically proximate to the geographical coordinates ([0041]) (Note: the computing system determines customer premises at which the media player device is located based on the geographical coordinates (geolocations)) .
Ramesh fails to disclose processing historical data received from the one or more mobile computing devices, wherein the historical data comprises location data identifying geographical coordinates at which the one or more mobile computing devices were located while connected to the internet via the IP address.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Herring discloses processing historical data received from the one or more mobile computing devices, wherein the historical data comprises location data identifying geographical coordinates at which the one or more mobile computing devices were located while connected to the internet via the IP address ([0025]-[0029]) (Note: the system processes historical data received from the one or more mobile computing devices, wherein the historical data comprises location data identifying geographical coordinates at which the one or more mobile computing devices were located while connected to the internet via the IP address).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Ramesh with the concept of Herring to obtain the claimed invention. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance data accuracy in identifying geographical coordinates.
Referring to claim 2, Ramesh in view of Herring discloses the method of claim 1.
Ramesh discloses wherein the one or more mobile computing devices being indicated as having previously established an internet connection via the IP address comprises detecting a unique device identifier, for each of the one or more mobile computing devices, in internet communications routed via the IP address ([0043]) (Note: the media player 100 may determine an identity of the media-presentation device with which the media player 100 is connected, based on HDMI signaling data).
Referring to claim 3, Ramesh in view of Herring discloses the method of claim 1.
Ramesh discloses wherein determining an establishment at which the recipient device is located further comprises comparing the geographical coordinates at which the one or more mobile computing devices were located while connected to the internet via the IP address to map data comprising metadata including at least physical addresses corresponding to one or more establishments, and wherein a particular physical address corresponding to the establishment is located physically proximate to the geographical coordinates ([0039], [0041], [0051]-[0052], and [0069]) (Note: the computing system determines the premises at which the media player is located by comparing the geographical coordinates to a mapping data).
Referring to claim 7, Ramesh in view of Herring discloses the method of claim 1.
Herring discloses wherein the historical data is received from applications running on the one or more mobile computing devices ([0031]) (Note: client devices send and receive information over the network. A search engine or other network application can store, in historical data store 130, some or all of the received information including network addresses and events obtained from the client devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Ramesh with the concept of Herring to obtain the claimed invention. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for a process improvement and efficiency.
Referring to claim 8, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 1 is applicable herein. Ramesh discloses a system comprising at least one processor (fig.8).
Referring to claim 9, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 2 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 10, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 3 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 14, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 7 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 15, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 1 is applicable herein. Ramesh discloses a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium (fig.8, non-transitory data storage 804) comprising instructions (fig.8, program instructions 808) encoded therein, wherein the instructions are executed by a processor ([0083]).
Referring to claim 16, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 2 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 17, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 3 is applicable herein.
Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh in view of Herring, and further in view of Hayman et al. (hereinafter referred to as Hayman, US 2020/0074439 A1).
Referring to claim 4, Ramesh in view of Herring discloses the method of claim 3.
Ramesh discloses wherein determining an establishment at which the recipient device is located further comprises: in response to comparing the geographical coordinates to the map data, determining the establishment and at least one other establishment are within a predetermined distance from the geographical coordinates ([0052]) (Note: the computing system could determine a distance between the registered home location 300 of the media player 100 and the newly determined location of the media player 100 and could determine whether that determined distance is at least as far as a predefined threshold distance deemed sufficient to indicate that the media player 100 has moved from its home location to a visited location).
Ramesh in view of Herring fails to disclose processing the historical data, wherein the historical data further comprises time data indicative of a time duration during which the one or more mobile computing devices were connected to the internet via the IP address; processing the metadata corresponding to the map data, wherein the metadata corresponding to the map data further comprises hours of operation corresponding to the establishment and the at least one other establishment; and determining the time duration is outside the hours of operation corresponding to the at least one other establishment.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hayman discloses processing the historical data, wherein the historical data further comprises time data indicative of a time duration during which the one or more mobile computing devices were connected to the internet via the IP address; processing the metadata corresponding to the map data, wherein the metadata corresponding to the map data further comprises hours of operation corresponding to the establishment and the at least one other establishment; and determining the time duration is outside the hours of operation corresponding to the at least one other establishment (fig.2, [0016] and [0020]) (Note: the system processes login history comprising timestamp data indicative of a time duration during which the one or more mobile computing devices were connected to the internet via the IP address; wherein the cluster engine (132) may compare each timestamp with a non-work hours range (i.e., a timeframe when the user is expected to be at home). For example, the non-work hours range may include 6 pm-midnight on weekdays, all day on the weekends, and/or all day on holidays, etc. The cluster associated with the most timestamps overlapping (e.g., falling within) the non-work hours range is deemed to represent the home location of the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Ramesh in view of Herring with the concept of Hayman to obtain the claimed invention. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the process of identifying geographical coordinates.
Referring to claim 5, Ramesh in view of Herring and Hayman discloses the method of claim 4. Hayman discloses wherein receiving an IP address corresponding to a recipient device further comprises receiving metadata corresponding to a transmission of digital content, the metadata comprising at least a transmission timestamp, and wherein determining an establishment at which the recipient device is located further comprises determining the transmission timestamp is outside the hours of operation corresponding to the at least one other establishment ([0016]-[0019]) (Note: the system receives metadata corresponding to a transmission of digital content, the metadata comprising at least a transmission timestamp, and wherein it is determined the transmission timestamp outside non-work hours range is deemed to represent the home location of the user).
The same motivation presented for claim 4 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 6, Ramesh in view of Herring and Hayman discloses the method of claim 5. Ramesh discloses wherein the IP address corresponding to the recipient device is received from a third-party entity (fig1, OTT media provider 102) associated with the transmission of the digital content ([0021] and [0023]).
Referring to claim 11, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 4 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 12, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 5 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 13, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 6 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 18, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 4 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 19, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 5 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 20, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 6 is applicable herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSTAPHA DIABY whose telephone number is (571)270-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM.
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, ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/MOUSTAPHA DIABY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights