Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/618,079

SCALABLE ONLINE PLACE RECOMMENDATION

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Mar 27, 2024
Examiner
AIRAPETIAN, MILA
Art Unit
3688
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Snap Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
699 granted / 959 resolved
+20.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
996
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
37.6%
-2.4% vs TC avg
§103
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 959 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered. 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 non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method. Claim 12 recites a system. Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1, taken as representative, recites the abstract idea of communicating content associated with check-in places. This idea is described by the following steps: A method comprising: receiving user location data of a geographic position of a user; receiving a plurality of places; obtaining place data for each place of the plurality of places, the place data comprising check-in data, the check-in data comprising: a plurality of locations of check-ins associated with the place, and a check-in location distribution parameter computed based on the plurality of locations of check-ins; computing a relevance score for each place of the plurality of places based on the user location data and the check-in data; ranking the plurality of places based on the respective relevance scores; displaying of the ranking of the plurality of places; based on receiving a user selection of a place of the plurality of places, retrieving interactive content associated with the selected place; and displaying of the retrieved interactive content. Claims 12 and 20 recite equivalent limitations. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite vehicle recommendation, i.e., commercial interactions. Additionally, the limitations of “computing a relevance score …”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), in that they recite mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations. Additionally, the above recited limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ides, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind. The BRI of these limitations includes a human mentally, or by use of pen and paper, collecting information, ranking the places, analyzing information, and performing calculations to determine a relevance score for each place. Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claims 1 recites a computing device hosting an interaction client application; claims 12 and 20 recite at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These additional computer-related elements merely invoke such additional elements as tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Step 2B: Claims 1, 12 and 20 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 12 and 20 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 12 and 20 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 12 and 20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05. Dependent Claims Step 2A: The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two. Dependent Claims Step 2B: The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm. 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 A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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. /MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 27, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Nov 24, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §101
Mar 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12567099
MACHINE LEARNING COLLABORATION TECHNIQUES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561724
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING RECOMMENDATION REASON, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12541786
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DEVICE FOR MULTI-MODAL RECOMMENDER AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12493906
CROSS-SYSTEM RECOMMENDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12488376
Service Execution System and Related Product
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+14.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 959 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month