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 Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 02/02/2026.
Claims 12 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1-11, 13-19, and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 02/02/2026 have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on page 9 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims have been fully considered and are considered to be unpersuasive.
On page 9 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to any abstract idea and that the claims are instead directed to an improved map graphical user interface. The examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The independent claims, as current drafted, recite features for generating scores for a set of candidate listings based on a plurality of calculations and observations (i.e., a booking probability, a distance of each listing location from a center of a bound, and visibility based on other listings), optimizing listings to be shown to a user by removing a listing based on a distance to other listings, replacing the removed listing with a new listing to generate an updated set of candidate listings to maintain a total number of listings, calculating a cumulative booking score for the updated set of candidate listings, comparing the cumulative booking score to a maximum score, and displaying a set of listing that has the maximum score. These claim features recite concepts of commercial interactions in the form of marketing and advertising, and further recite concepts of mental processes in the form of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis.
The independent claims similarly recite additional elements of “fitting a new bound for the maps viewport that includes a remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing by determining a smallest boundary that can include all listing in the remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing”. Although this claim feature recites technical steps for fitting/adjusting a boundary for a maps viewport, the technical process for executing this claim feature is described at a high level of generality such that it merely amounts to generic computer instructions to apply the abstract idea identified further above. Because this claim feature merely describes outputting a result at a high level of generality (i.e., fitting a new bound for the maps viewport that includes a remaining set of candidate listings by determining a smallest boundary that can include all listings) without providing further specific technical details regarding how the result is achieved, these claim features are not considered to reflect a technical improvement to GUI technology or provide a specific technical solution to a technical problem.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 10-13 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are considered to be persuasive. In view of the amendments, the independent claims and their dependents are found to overcome the prior art of record. The Examiner has provided a detailed explanation of why the claims are found to overcome the pertinent prior art of record on page 20 herein.
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 1-11, 13-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-8 and 21-22 are directed to a process (“method”), claims 9-11 and 13-16 are directed to a machine (“system”), and claims 17-19 are directed to a manufacture (“non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Thus, claims 1-11, 13-19, and 21-22 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-11, 13-19, and 21-22, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Generating a maximum score for a set of candidate listings based on a booking probability for each listing, a distance of each listing location from a center of a bound for a maps […] and visibility […] based on other listings;
Optimizing listings to be shown […] by performing, for a maximum of a predefined number of listings removes, operations comprising: removing, from the set of candidate listings, a listing with a location […] with a largest distance to a location of all other listings;
Replacing the removed listing with a new listing that has a geographical location within the new bound for the maps […] to generate an updated set of candidate listings that includes the remaining set of candidate listings and the new listings to maintain a total number of listings;
Calculating a cumulative booking score for the updated set of candidate listings;
Determining whether the cumulative booking score for the updated set of candidate listings is greater than the maximum score; and
Based on determining that the cumulative booking score for the updated set of candidate listings is greater than the maximum score, setting the maximum score to the cumulative booking score; and
After the maximum of the predefined number of listing are removed, causing display of a set of listings that has the maximum score […].
Therefore, claims 1 and 2-8, 21-22, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of marketing, advertising, and business relations - which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0011] and ¶ [0026]. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis- which is the abstract idea of mental processes with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “maps viewport”, steps for “fitting a new bound for the maps viewport that includes a remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing by determining a smallest boundary that can include all listings in the remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing”, a “user interface”, a “computing device”, and steps for causing display of information “in the maps viewport in a user interface of a computing device”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 9, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Generating a maximum score for a set of candidate listings based on a booking probability for each listing, a distance of each listing location from a center of a bound for a maps […] and visibility based on other listings;
Optimizing listings to be shown […] by performing, for a maximum of a predefined number of listings removes, operations comprising: removing, from the set of candidate listings, a listing with a location […] with a largest distance to a location of all other listings;
Replacing the removed listing with a new listing that has a geographical location within the new bound for the maps […] to generate an updated set of candidate listings that includes the remaining set of candidate listings and the new listings to maintain a total number of listings;
Calculating a cumulative booking score for the updated set of candidate listings;
Determining whether the cumulative booking score for the updated set of candidate listings is greater than the maximum score; and
Based on determining that the cumulative booking score for the updated set of candidate listings is greater than the maximum score, setting the maximum score to the cumulative booking score; and
After the maximum of the predefined number of listings are removed, causing display of a set of listings that has the maximum score […].
Therefore, claims 9 and 10-11, 13-16, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of marketing, advertising, and business relations - which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0011] and ¶ [0026]. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis- which is the abstract idea of mental processes with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “memory that stores instructions”, “one or more processors configured by the instructions to perform operations”, a “maps viewport”, steps for “fitting a new bound for the maps viewport that includes a remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing by determining a smallest boundary that can include all listing in the remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing”, a “user interface”, a “computing device”, and steps for causing display of information in “the maps viewport in a user interface of a computing device”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 17, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Generating a maximum score for a set of candidate listings based on a booking probability for each listing, a distance of each listing location from a center of a bound for a maps […] and visibility […] based on other listings;
Optimizing listings to be shown […] by performing, for a maximum of a predefined number of listings removes, operations comprising: removing, from the set of candidate listings, a listing with a location […] with a largest distance to a location of all other listings;
Replacing the removed listing with a new listing that has a geographical location within the new bound for the maps […] to generate an updated set of candidate listings that includes the remaining set of candidate listings and the new listings to maintain a total number of listings;
Calculating a cumulative booking score for the updated set of candidate listings;
Determining whether the cumulative booking score for the updated set of candidate listings is greater than the maximum score; and
Based on determining that the cumulative booking score for the updated set of candidate listings is greater than the maximum score, setting the maximum score to the cumulative booking score; and
After the maximum of the predefined number of listings are removed, causing display of a set of listings that has the maximum score […].
Therefore, claims 17 and 18-19, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of marketing, advertising, and business relations - which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0011] and ¶ [0026]. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis- which is the abstract idea of mental processes with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon that are executable by at least one processor to cause a computing device to perform operations”, a “maps viewport”, steps for “fitting a new bound for the maps viewport that includes a remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing by determining a smallest boundary that can include all listings in the remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing”, a “user interface”, a “computing device”, and steps for causing display of information “in the maps viewport in a user interface of a computing device”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further describes that the listings are represented by graphical icons - which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of advertising and marketing, and mental processes with the aid of pen and paper.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “a graphical icon in the maps viewport”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 3 further describes that the graphical icons may displayed in a first size and second size, where the second size represents lower relevance listings in a geographical area. Thus, claim 3 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of advertising and marketing, and mental processes with the aid of pen and paper.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the maps viewport further includes a display of a plurality of graphical icons of a second size, representing lower relevance listings in a geographical area represented in the maps viewport”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 4 further describes the operations for optimizing the listings to be shown to comprise determining that one or more graphical icons of the second size are outside of the new bound and replacing the one or more lower relevant listings with new lower relevant listings of a set of listings that has the maximum score. Thus, claim 4 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of advertising and marketing.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the new bound for the maps viewport to be displayed in the map viewport in the user interface of the computing device”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 5 further describes the operations for optimizing the listings to be show to comprise determining one or more listings in the remaining set of candidate listings is overlapped by another listing, removing the one or more listings from the remaining set of candidate listings, and replacing each of the removed one or more listings with a listing to generate the updated set of candidate listings. Thus, claim 5 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of advertising and marketing.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “a geographical location within the new bound for the maps viewport”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 6 further describes generating a list of candidate map centers by dividing the new bound into grids and using each intersection of the grids as a candidate for a map center, and traversing the list of candidate map centers to determine an optimized map center based on a candidate map center with a highest cumulative booking score. Thus, claim 6 further describes the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis with the aid of pen and paper.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of the “new bound for the maps viewport” and “wherein causing display in the maps viewport in the user interface of the computing device of a set of listings that has the maximum score includes display of the set of listings with the optimized map center”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 7 further describes that the set of candidate listings comprise a top predefined number of listings from a plurality of listings having geographic locations within a geographical area and the top predefined number of listings comprise listings with a high booking probability. Thus, claim 7 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of advertising and marketing. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 8 further describes that the cumulative booking score for the updated set of candidate listings is calculated based on a booking probability for each listing, a distance of the listing from a center of the new bound, and visibility based on other listings. Thus, claim 8 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of advertising and marketing.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of the “new bound for the maps viewport”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 10 further describes that the listings are represented by graphical icons - which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of advertising and marketing, and mental processes with the aid of pen and paper.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “a graphical icon in the maps viewport”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 11 further describes that the graphical icons may displayed in a first size and second size, where the second size represents lower relevance listings in a geographical area. Furthermore, claim 11 further describes the operations for optimizing the listings to be shown to comprise determining that one or more graphical icons of the second size are outside of the new bound and replacing the one or more lower relevant listings with new lower relevant listings of a set of listings that has the maximum score. Thus, claim 11 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of advertising and marketing, and mental processes with the aid of pen and paper.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the maps viewport further includes a display of a plurality of graphical icons of a second size, representing lower relevance listings in a geographical area represented in the maps viewport” and “the new bound for the maps viewport to be displayed in the map viewport in the user interface of the computing device”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 13 further describes the operations for optimizing the listings to be show to comprise determining one or more listings in the remaining set of candidate listings is overlapped by another listing, removing the one or more listings from the remaining set of candidate listings, and replacing each of the removed one or more listings with a listing to generate the updated set of candidate listings. Thus, claim 13 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of advertising and marketing.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “a geographical location within the new bound for the maps viewport”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 14 further describes generating a list of candidate map centers by dividing the new bound into grids and using each intersection of the grids as a candidate for a map center, and traversing the list of candidate map centers to determine an optimized map center based on a candidate map center with a highest cumulative booking score. Thus, claim 14 further describes the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis with the aid of pen and paper.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of the “new bound for the maps viewport” and “wherein causing display in the maps viewport in the user interface of the computing device of a set of listings that has the maximum score includes display of the set of listings with the optimized map center”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 15 further describes that the set of candidate listings comprise a top predefined number of listings from a plurality of listings having geographic locations within a geographical area and the top predefined number of listings comprise listings with a high booking probability. Thus, claim 15 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of advertising and marketing. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 9 from which the claim depends.
Claim 16 further describes that the cumulative booking score for the updated set of candidate listings is calculated based on a booking probability for each listing, a distance of the listing from a center of the new bound, and visibility based on other listings. Thus, claim 16 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of advertising and marketing.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of the “new bound for the maps viewport”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 18 further describes the operations for optimizing the listings to be show to comprise determining one or more listings in the remaining set of candidate listings is overlapped by another listing, removing the one or more listings from the remaining set of candidate listings, and replacing each of the removed one or more listings with a listing to generate the updated set of candidate listings. Thus, claim 18 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of advertising and marketing.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “a geographical location within the new bound for the maps viewport”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 19 further describes generating a list of candidate map centers by dividing the new bound into grids and using each intersection of the grids as a candidate for a map center, and traversing the list of candidate map centers to determine an optimized map center based on a candidate map center with a highest cumulative booking score. Thus, claim 19 further describes the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis with the aid of pen and paper.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the new bound for the maps viewport” and “wherein causing display in the maps viewport in the user interface of the computing device of a set of listings that has the maximum score includes display of the set of listings with the optimized map center”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 21 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1 by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein the smallest boundary is adjusted based on a display size or shape of the computing device”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 22 further describes the visibility based on other listings is determined based on whether a graphical icon for a listing is visible atop graphical icons for other listings or hidden beneath graphical icons for other listings. Thus, claim 22 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions and mental processes including mental observations.
The claim further recites the additional elements of “a maps viewport”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Examiner Notes
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 have been found to overcome the cited art of record. Further, claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-16, 18-19, and 21-22 by virtue of dependence, recite the same limitations as claims 1, 9, and 17 that overcome the cited art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of claims 1, 9, and 17 being found to overcome the cited art of record. None of the prior art of record, taken individual or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are as follows:
Dubois et al. U.S. Publication No. 2022/0375009;
Linda et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0031931;
Ci et al. CN113592530A;
Gan WO2023125608A1;
Agrawala et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,952,661B2;
Dubois discloses a flexible search system configured to receive and return results for flexible listing searches. The system comprises a display engine that retrieves all candidate listing within a very large area around the search center. The retrieval area is set to as large as needed, where the minimum number of listings is preconfigured as N and then the display engine computes a smallest bounding box that satisfies the requirement of having N listing available. Dubois, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claims 1, 9, and 17. Although Dubois teaches features for computing a smallest bounding box that satisfies the requirement of having N listings available, Dubois does not teach removing, from a set of candidate listings, a listing with a location in the maps viewport with a largest distance to a location of all other listings from and fitting a new bound for the maps viewport that includes a remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing by determining a smallest boundary that can include all listing in the remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing.
Linda discloses a service for search queries based on location-based clustering of search results corresponding to the query. A user may submit a query for travel items, such as hotel accommodations, and the service can determine an initial set of hotels. Figs. 3-4 depict a user interface which includes a map that displays sets of relevant clusters/travel items within a particular geographic region, where travel items are scored to determine relevancy. A user may select a particular cluster from those presented on the user interface, and this results in a new query that is limited to the particular selected region/cluster. The new query involves ranking/scoring travel items according to the geographic identifier, and a map is presented of the queried geographic identifier. Linda, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claims 1, 9, and 17. In particular, Linda does not teach removing, from a set of candidate listings, a listing with a location in the maps viewport with a largest distance to a location of all other listings from and fitting a new bound for the maps viewport that includes a remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing by determining a smallest boundary that can include all listing in the remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing. Furthermore, Linda does not teach replacing the removed listing with a new listing that maintains a total number of listings.
Ci discloses a system configured to obtain and recommend service providers to a user according to current rankings of the service providers in response to a user’s query for a service. Furthermore, the system may adjust the ranking of service providers by determining a service provider with a current highest score value and replacing this service provider with another service provider having a higher score value. Ci, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claims 1, 9, and 17. In particular, Ci does not teach removing, from a set of candidate listings, a listing with a location in the maps viewport with a largest distance to a location of all other listings from and fitting a new bound for the maps viewport that includes a remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing by determining a smallest boundary that can include all listing in the remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing. Furthermore, Ci not teach replacing the removed listing with a new listing that maintains a total number of listings.
Gan discloses a map display method and system that is configured to set map display parameters according to a target battery swapping station, and display the target battery swapping station according to the map display parameters. The coordinates of the center point of the map are determined according to the distribution range of the battery swapping stations and the map display area. The battery swapping stations can be grouped according to the distance between the stations and an aggregation method based on spatial grid division can be adopted. Integrating the squares of distances, the swapping stations located in each square are aggregated to the center of the square for display. Gan, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claims 1, 9, and 17. In particular, Gan does not teach removing, from a set of candidate listings, a listing with a location in the maps viewport with a largest distance to a location of all other listings from and fitting a new bound for the maps viewport that includes a remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing by determining a smallest boundary that can include all listing in the remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing. Furthermore, Gan not teach replacing the removed listing with a new listing that maintains a total number of listings.
Agrawala discloses a system and method for making computer-generated maps. In the method, a route map is portioned into an initial grid composed of candidate grid cells, into which annotations and labels can be placed. The method includes identifying candidate grid cells in which said annotations and labels can be placed. Agrawala, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claims 1, 9, and 17. In particular, Agrawala does not teach removing, from a set of candidate listings, a listing with a location in the maps viewport with a largest distance to a location of all other listings from and fitting a new bound for the maps viewport that includes a remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing by determining a smallest boundary that can include all listing in the remaining set of candidate listings without the removed listing. Furthermore, Agrawala not teach replacing the removed listing with a new listing that maintains a total number of listings.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights