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 .
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 7 are currently amended.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 7-11
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Having less than a predetermined number of vendors in a given area is not technically related to solving a communication congestion problem at a base station. Another way to say it, having less people in a call center making less phone call is not technically reducing a bandwidth or technically solving a bandwidth problem. Reducing communication congestion in a base station is not solved technically as a result of reducing the number of vendors in a stadium block.
Similarly, the Examiner addresses the argument “applies route optimization in a specific manner that improves the operation of cellular network infrastructure” as above. Reducing the number of vendors in a given area cannot technically solve managing multiple mobile terminals in a high-density environment where simultaneous access to the same base station would cause network congestion. The reduction of communication congestion is an inheriting result of vendor number reduction.
Further, adjusting the routes to prevent the presence of more than a threshold number of vendors in a area is a mental process than can be reasonably done by a human.
Nevertheless, the present claim needs a positively recited "moving" step based on the transmitted adjusted route, not just transmitting an adjusted route to the vendor. The moving step would provide the practical application. Claim limitation that recites “such that the vendor can move” it doesn’t necessarily mean that the vendor moves along the adjusted route (BRI).
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-9 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-9 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of providing routes and assigning vendors to sales areas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A route control configured to collect preference information relating to preferences of spectators at an event held at a facility; aggregate, in block-level of spectator seating, the collected preference information calculate, from the aggregated preference information in blocks, a demand level for a vendor of products in each seating block in the facility; determine one value as a demand level for each vendor and each block of the spectator seating, and determine on the basis of the demand level in each seating block, a route along which each vendor is to move; adjust the route such that a position of the vendor moving along the determined route satisfies a predetermined condition and such that a number of vendors present at a same time in a same cell formed by a base station installed in the facility is less than a predetermined number; and transmit the adjusted route to a terminal of the vendor to such that the vendor can move along aisles in the spectator seating in accordance with the adjusted route”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for routing vendors in a stadium. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 7 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-6 and 8-9 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for routing vendors in a stadium. As a result, claims 2-6 and 8-9 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “apparatus, comprising: at least one memory configured to store program code at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including: code to cause at least one of the at least one processor to”, “aggregating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to”, “calculating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to”, “determining code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to”, “adjusting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to”, and “transmitting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “collecting” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “collecting” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 7 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 7. As a result, claims 2-6 and 8-9 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “apparatus, comprising: at least one memory configured to store program code at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including: code to cause at least one of the at least one processor to”, “aggregating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to”, “calculating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to”, “determining code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to”, “adjusting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to”, and “transmitting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to”. The step of “collecting” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “collecting” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 7 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 7. As a result, claims 2-6 and 8-9 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (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 US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights