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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 remain for examination. Applicant's arguments filed on 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained and incorporated by reference the last Office action on 02/25/2026. Accordingly, this action has been made final.
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 are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claims 1, 13 and 17, claims 1, 13 and 17 appear to be directed to an abstract idea rather than a practical application of the idea. The claim does not result in a physical transformation, nor does it appear to provide a useful, concrete and tangible result. The claimed step of " A method for generating and managing a security level-aware map, the method comprising: receiving a map request from a first user to generate a map with a map security level; determining if the map security level satisfies a first security condition; in response to determining that the map security level satisfies the first security level threshold, generating the map with the map security level…" Thus, what results from the claimed method is merely a security map. The security map is not claimed as applied in a practical application, which provides a tangible, i.e., real world result. security map is not produced a tangible result, because it does not use the result of the connect in a practical application nor make the result available for use in such a form as to enable any usefulness of having performed the step of pairing to be realized. Instead, it appears to remain a mere abstraction. Therefore, claim 1 is not statutory and it is rejected under 35 U. S. C. 101.
The dependent claims 2-12, 14-16 and 18-20 included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These include.
US 20100235640 A1 – Satoh relates to an information processing apparatus, a method of mutual authentication, mutual authentication program, and storage medium, and more particularly, to an information processing apparatus capable of data communications based on mutual authentication, a method of mutual authentication, a mutual authentication program, and a storage medium storing the mutual authentication program.
US 20110238840 A1- Shi relates to network communications technologies, and in particular, to a method, system, and device for service negotiation.
US 20160026786 A1 Thomas discloses a security techniques and, more particularly, to security techniques for allowing access to applications of a mobile device.
Response to Arguments
Arguments
It is argued that:
Rection 101 Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for allegedly being directed to non- statutory subject matter.
According to the USPTO 101 memo "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" published on August 4, 2025 (the "101 Memo"), the USPTO provides that for "Mental process grouping: The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that 'can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper,' to be an abstract idea. The USPTO subject matter eligibility analysis follows this precedent and instructs examiners to determine that a claim recites a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. On the other hand, a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance, when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)." (The 101 Memo at page 2, emphasis added.)
Here, at least the recited limitations of "generating the map with the map security level" cannot be performed in human's mind, with or without physical aid. Additionally, the recited limitations of "receiving the data feed from a data source, the data feed including a plurality of data items and each data item corresponding to a corresponding data security level; for each data item of the plurality of data items, determining whether the data item satisfies a second security condition; and adding one or more data items of the plurality of data items that satisfy the second security condition on the map" cannot be practically performed by human's mind.
For at least the forgoing reasons, claim 1 does not fall into the grouping of mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two - Integrated Into a Practical Application
Even assuming, arguendo, claim 1 falls into the category of a mental process, claim 1 is still not directed to an abstract idea because claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application (e.g., managing security for map and data).
According to MPEP § 2106.04.(d)(1), "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." (Emphasis added)
Claim 1 recites limitations to improve data security for map data (e.g., what data items can be presented on a geographic map), which is the functioning of a computer or the technical field of geographic map that combines geography, computer science, and data engineering. For example, claim 1 recites a technical solution that "a security level-aware map is generated to stream real-time data to the map for creating a trustworthy and seamless shared understanding of an area" (para. [0020]).
Therefore, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea even if one were to assume that claim 1 falls into the grouping of a mental process.
As such, claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of amended claim 1 and its dependent claims. Similar arguments also apply to amended claims 13 and 17 and respective dependent claims.
Express Rescission of Any Prosecution Disclaimer
Applicant does not concede and otherwise rescinds and retracts any disclaimer of claim scope from prior amendments or characterizations of claims or referenced art made during prosecution of the parent or any other related application(s). Examination of the instant application requires renewed consideration of any references previously considered during examination of any related application(s). Any amendments to the claims are made to expedite prosecution of this application, without acquiescing to the Office's rejections or characterizations of the claims or references in the Office Action. Even if not expressly discussed above, Applicant respectfully traverses each of the rejections, assertions, and characterizations regarding the disclosure and teachings of the cited references, including the prior art status and the propriety of proposed combinations of cited references. Unless expressly and specifically stated herein, nothing in this paper should be construed as Applicant's intent to concede any issue with regard to any claim. The Office should not interpret any claim amendment or statements herein as an admission or concession of unpatentability of the subject matter claimed prior to such amendments. Applicant specifically reserves the right to prosecute the previously claimed subject matter and claims of a broader or different scope in a continuation application.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1, 13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of generating and managing a security level-aware map. The concept of generating and managing a security level-aware map as recited in the claim can be performed manually or by using a “processor” and is similar to the kind of ‘organizing human activity’ at issue in Alice Corp. Although the claims are not drawn to the same subject matter, the abstract idea of generating and managing a security level-aware map is similar to the abstract idea of comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene). In addition, claim 1 does not have a practical application of the security map.
Claim 1 therefore is directed to an abstract idea.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including claims 13 and 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 13, 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter 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 EVANS DESROSIERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/EVANS DESROSIERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights