DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 remains pending, and is rejected.
Claims 2-13 have been added, and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/8/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/8/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims recite specific, concrete data-processing operations performed by a computer system, including receiving from a user interface, receiving a venue selection, generating a superlative food/beverage record, updating a count, receiving a geographic-bounded search query, and providing search results. It is argued that these steps define a new data structure and a specific ranking system that ensures consistency of user-contributed superlative data enforcing one superlative per category, automatically updating and normalizing ranking counts, eliminating stale or duplicated user ratings, producing search results that reflect a mathematically constrained ranking model rather than subjective, arbitrary, or multi-signal sentiment models, and operating over geographic-bounded datasets, which requires calculating and filtering based on geolocation constraints. Comparisons are also drawn to Enfish citing that claims involving new data structures were found to be eligible.
On pages 8-9, it is argued that the claims improve the functioning of a computer system, such as a non-conventional record-type, computer-enforced constraints preventing inconsistent or duplicate data assignments, automated dynamic ranking, and producing search results conditioned on geographic distance, requiring technical location processing. On pages 9-10, it is argued that the ordered combination is not conventional, such as the rating/review platform stores exactly one superlative per category per user, replacing a prior superlative, updating counts in a constrained, normalization-enforcing model, ranking venues solely based on superlative count, and the results requiring a positive superlative count. Further comparisons are made to McRO as applying specific rules, and DDR Holdings as achieving a technical result.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The purported data-processing operations performed by a computer system are not computer processing activities, and are general steps of an abstract idea that are merely implemented on a computer. The receiving of a type of food/beverage, receiving a venue selection, enforcing on-per-category superlative, generating a record of superlative food/beverage, updating a count, receiving a geographic-bound query, and providing search results are not related to computer activity, and merely represent the sales activity of ranking venues by a count of how many people selected them to be the best for a selected category. The only computer element recited in the claims is the user interface, which is recited in passing, and is merely applied to the claims, such that the inputs may be entered through some computing device. There is no recitation in the claims, nor disclosure in the specification that describe any new way a computer stores and retrieves data in a novel data structure. The invention merely utilizes generic data structures, and organizes the data differently in context of the abstract idea. As such, the comparisons to Enfish are inapposite. In Enfish, the claims were directed to a specific improvement to the ways computers store and retrieve data from memory, and functioned differently than conventional databases. As discussed above, the claims do not affect how a computer stores or retrieves data, and merely uses abstract data in determining sales activities, and do not improve any functioning of the computer.
Even if the claims, alone or in combination, are non-conventional, they are only so within the abstract idea. The single superlative venue, replacing a prior superlative venue, updating counts, ranking venues based on the counts, and requiring a positive superlative count are not anything related to computer activities, but to the sales activity. This process is capably to be performed without a computer, the speed of the computer merely makes it more feasible. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) discloses that the courts have found the computer functionalities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) also discloses where the speed of performing an activity where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The comparisons to McRO and DDR Holdings are also inapposite. In McRO, there was clearly an improvement to computer-related technology of allowing computers to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animate characters”. It was not merely applying specific rules, but the improvement to the computer’s ability in generating the animated characters, which is not a process that exists outside of computer technology. In DDR Holdings, the claims specified how interactions with the computer and internet were manipulated to create a composite/hybrid page that prevented the user from being directed to the outside merchant, therein overriding the routine functionality of a link. As discussed above, the present claims do not affect any computer ability or functionality, and are only directed to the abstract process of counting and ordering results of what users consider a superlative venue.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/8/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-13 are directed to a method, which is a process. Therefore, claims 1-13 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Claim 1 sets forth a process for counting selections for a venue and ordering results based on the count:
receiving a selection of a food/beverage type;
receiving a selection of a single superlative venue for the selected food/beverage type, wherein for a given food/beverage type only one superlative venue designation per user is stored;
generating a superlative food/beverage record including the food/beverage type and the selected venue;
updating a count of the food/beverage type associated with the selected venue;
receiving a search query including a search food/beverage type and a search geographic location;
providing search results including a list of one or more venues within a given distance of the search geographic area having the search food/beverage type and a positive count of superlative food/beverage records associated with the food/beverage type.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for counting selections for a venue and ordering results based on the count. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to a selection of a superlative venue, generating a record, updating a count, and returning search results to a query based on the count near the geographic location (see specification [0009] disclosing the helpfulness to predict foods to suggest that a user may like), which is an advertising and marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that claim 1 recites additional elements, such as:
a user interface;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The user interface is recited with a very high level of generality, merely being recited in passing as a medium for the receiving of a selection. Specification paragraph [0013] discloses the interface as being able to enable display of images, and can be displayed by a display device of the client device or server device. Paragraphs [0190-0192] discloses I/O interfaces that includes any input device, such as a keyboard, pointing device, touchscreen, microphone, etc. As such, it is evident that the user interface is any generic interface on a generic computing device, such that the abstract idea may be implemented on a computing device.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-13 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 21, such as by further defining the algorithm of counting selections for a venue and ordering results based on the count. Thus, each of claims 2-13 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-13 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-13 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 2-13 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-13 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-13 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 2-13 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-13 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as set forth above.
Claims 1-13 are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons as set forth below.
Claim 1 recites the claims features of: receiving, from the user interface, a selection of a single superlative venue for the selected food/beverage type, wherein for a given food/beverage type for only one superlative venue designation per user is stored;
The closes prior art was found to be as follows:
Belousova (US 10,366,434 B1) discloses col. 9, ln. 14-22 – “the server software application determines a food order frequency of the menu item. The food order frequency is, for example, the number of times the menu time appears in food orders from beginning of time, or a predetermined time (such as three hundred days before from the current time). A food order is an order placed by a diner with one or more menu items, and stored in the database 104. At 312, the server software application derives a food order rank for the menu item from the food order frequency”.
Kerr (US 20200389757 A1) discloses [0063] – “The content administration interface may further comprise relevance module 122. In some embodiments, a relevance weight value is associated with a content item. The relevance weight value may be adjusted based on user response to the content item, for example, feedback provided for the content item, selection of the content item, or lack of response to the content item. The relevance module allows the content administrator to adjust parameters affecting how the relevance weight is adjusted. Typically, the relevance module allows the content administrator to enter or change numerical point values by which a relevance weight is to be incremented or decremented in response to user behavior”.
Afram (US 20090089183 A1) discloses [0026] – “Field 414 may include user profile information. The user profile information may include information that may be obtained when interacting with the user, such as information regarding recent orders that the user placed, favorite orders that the user has identified, recent restaurants with which the user has placed an order, favorite restaurants that the user has identified”).
PTO-892 Reference U discloses a webpage for a service where users indicate the single best restaurant for a type of food. However, the earliest record of the service is 4/16/2024, which is past the effective filing date of the present application.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below note features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 in combination that overcome the prior art are:
receiving, from the user interface, a selection of a single superlative venue for the selected food/beverage type, wherein for a given food/beverage type for only one superlative venue designation per user is stored;
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims 1-13 are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Conclusion
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 TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 3/12/2026