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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the rejection made under § 101.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to a practical application and analogizing to Example 37. Example 37 differs greatly in its result—the automatic rearrangement of icons on a computer display (which has no non-technological analog) vs. ranking places and presenting most highly-ranked places to the user (abstract commercial/marketing output that exists even without/separate from technology).
The problem highlighted in the Arguments is at the abstract layer of organizing human activities, not one borne out of technology. The problems noted in Specification do not highlight any failures of modern computers. These are business implementation problems and do not set forth any deficiencies that are particular to computer capabilities or any other technology. "In sum, 'software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself." Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (emphasis added).
These elements are all abstract and when viewed in combination only amount to applying the abstract idea on generic computers. "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added).
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 does not recite a commercial interaction.
Examiner notes that the Specification talks about the user seeking place recommendations (see [0057], [0058]). The Specification also mentions using a user’s geolocation, recommending merchants (see [0050]). That strengthens the argument that the recommendations may be commercial in nature. Even if we were to say the claims didn’t fall under advertising, marketing, or sales activities/behaviors because the claims don’t explicitly recite the commercial nature of the recommendations, those activities aren’t the only types of methods of organizing human activities we can use. Recommending merchants would fall under the sub-grouping "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people". The MPEP notes that this sub-grouping “include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.”
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 does not recite mathematical concepts. Claim 1 recites the term “computing”. Computing is fundamentally based on mathematical concepts. It is considered a form of applied mathematics that involves algorithmic processes, logic, and discrete mathematics to process information.
As per Applicant’s “mental processes” argument, it is addressed in the Rejection below.
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 over the predetermined period of time;
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;
presenting a predetermined number of most highly-ranked places of the plurality of places according to the ranking;
based on receiving a user selection of a place of the presented most highly-ranked plurality of places, retrieving interactive content associated with the selected place; and
presenting 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.
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights