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 notice of allowance of 04/30/2026. 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under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/27/2026, has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/27/2026, was filed after the mailing date of the NOA on 04/30/2026. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 12-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. To be patent eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way. Claim(s) 1, 10, 12, are directed to a method (apparatus) determining a position of a mobile communication device. The claims appear to indicate they meet/pass the statutory category analysis of invention.
With reference to further analysis under step 2A, (Mayo test) meeting the judicially recognized exceptions, the claims are analyzed to see if directed to a Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon, or an Abstract Idea. It appears the application request for sensing of a local area via one or more parameters that guide where the sensing is to be performed and in response to the one or more parameters receive a position of the mobile communication device. Examples of Judicial exceptions include among others, abstract ideas of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in memory; or organizing information through mathematical correlations.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 12 is/are directed to sending (requesting or asking) for information that guide how and/or where the sensing is to be performed between nodes (entities). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because communicating (requesting or asking) and receiving information via a signal and performing the sensing with nodes, amounts to collecting information (message, data), recognizing certain information (message, data), are found to be abstract. It has been recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation, is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis, for instance, (Content Extraction, 776 F. 3d at 1347; Ultamercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F. 3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir 2014). Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information – to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, e.g. buySAFE and Google (limitations regarding using a telephone (sensor) to sense (receive) call at a location, were simply attempting to limit the abstract idea to a telephone (sensor) environment), Electric Power Group and Alstom (requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing and display in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology and did not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information based abstract idea). Considering step 2B, the analysis show that sensing of local area information exchange is merely a general link to particular technology or field of use or/and adding the works “apply it” (or an equivalent) with judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea with elements generally recognized as performing given function, is not significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii), performing repetitive measurement or calculations on received data at multiple points. When considered as an ordered combination of elements as a whole each step does no more than require process manipulation, as perform functions. The claims in the instant case do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply the steps of receiving and communicating sense data, etc., are basic functional elements and each step does no more than require process manipulation. The given functions do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. Additionally, the physical elements such as a processor, computer to execute (output) it is just general link to particular technological or field of use or/and adding the words (apply it or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer is not significantly more. Claims 2-9 and 13-20 similarly do not add significantly more than the basic steps treated above. Claims 2-9 and 13-20 merely comprises application/use of various known elements sensors to sense local area define a location produce a coarse position of the mobile communication device, that is, exchange information, amounts to not significantly more. Further the claims recite functional language lacking any requirements for how the desired result is achieved. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI whose telephone number is (571) 272-3014. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 4:00pm. 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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571 272 3042. 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.
/QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2632.
Prosecution Insights