DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action on the merits in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 21 October 2025 and the request for continued examination filed on 21 October 2025.
Claim(s) 1 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 October 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites an artificial intelligence (AI) drive search module, which should instead recite an artificial intelligence (AI) driven search module.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
receive an area layout for a venue including a plurality of points of interest;
capture,
identify a location of the user in the venue based on the at least one image of the venue;
identify a particular point of interest of the plurality of points of interest for the user based on the location of the user in the venue;
compile a body of knowledge for the particular point of interest;
identify user preferences for the user;
generate custom content for the user based on the compiled body of knowledge for the particular point of interest and the identified user preferences for the user; and
present the custom content to the user, wherein the presented custom content includes at least one of audio, visual or tactile content,
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of observing a scene and providing content regarding the scene. This concept describes a mental process that a tour guide should follow to provide a tour similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea. Alternatively, this concept is analogous to the examples of “observation”, “evaluation”, “judgement”, and “opinion” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, this concept as claimed does not require a scale of data beyond the mental faculties of a human being and the operations of the abstract idea can be practically performed in the human mind. As such, these limitations are determined to recite a mental process. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites an additional element of a device, the device including: at least one digital camera; and a computer including a memory and a processor. This additional element does not constitute an improvement to the function of a computer or other technology. Further, this additional element does not qualify as a particular machine that uses the abstract idea. Further, this additional element does not effect a transformation of an article. Finally, this additional element does not apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea with a generic mobile computing device. As such, this additional element is considered to only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim further recites an additional element of an artificial neural network configured to process data to achieve part of the abstract idea, where the artificial neural network is retrained based on data. At the level of generality claimed, this additional element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claim recites an additional element of a device, the device including: at least one digital camera; and a computer including a memory and a processor. Rooyen et al. (US 2013/0017807 A1) demonstrates (“A conventional smartphone preferably includes … an applications processor … memory … LCD display … camera.” [0142]) that such devices were conventional before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claim an additional element of an artificial neural network configured to process data to achieve part of the abstract idea, where the artificial neural network is retrained based on data. As previously noted, this additional element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claim do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the independent claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 7-18 further narrow the abstract idea, but the claims continue to recite an abstract idea. Claims 7-18 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas of claims 7-18 into a practical application for the same reasons as indicated above. As such, these claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of claims 7-18 for the same reasons as indicated above.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of a database. This additional element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 2 further recites the additional element of a digital display. This additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considered as a combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea. The additional element of a database element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device, and as such does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional element of the digital display is demonstrated to be conventional by Rooyen et al. (US 2013/0017807 A1) ([0142]), and as such does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as a combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore the combination of additional elements of claim 2 does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 3 further describes the additional element of the device as including a screen. However, this additional element continues to only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considered as a combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea. The additional element of the screen is demonstrated to be conventional by Rooyen et al. (US 2013/0017807 A1) ([0142]), and as such does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as a combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore the combination of additional elements of claim 3 does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 4 recites the additional element of a recognition device. At the level of generality with which this additional element is claimed, it may be interpreted as a mobile computing device. This additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considered as a combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea. Such devices were demonstrated to be conventional by Rooyen et al. (US 2013/0017807 A1) ([0142]), and as such does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as a combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore the combination of additional elements of claim 4 does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 further describes the additional element of the artificial neural network. However, this additional element continues to amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considered as a combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea. When considered at Step 2B, this additional element continues to amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. Therefore this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as a combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore the combination of additional elements of claim 6 does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 19 further describes the additional element of the device as a smart device. However, this additional element continues to only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considered as a combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea. The additional element of the smart device is demonstrated to be conventional by Rooyen et al. (US 2013/0017807 A1) ([0142]), and as such does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as a combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore the combination of additional elements of claim 19 does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 20 further describes the additional element of smart device as one of several devices including a smart phone. However, this additional element continues to only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considered as a combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea. The additional element of the smart phone is demonstrated to be conventional by Rooyen et al. (US 2013/0017807 A1) ([0142]), and as such does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as a combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a mobile computing device. Therefore the combination of additional elements of claim 20 does not amount to significantly more.
Because the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11, and 13-18: Claim 1 has been rewritten in full in the present Amendment without ellipses. The current version accurately reflects the language of claim 1 and provides proper antecedent basis for all recited elements.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 21 October 2025 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-20: The amended claims now recite that the computer of the device is in communication with an artificial neural network configured to process image data of the venue together with user data indicative of the user’s preferences, location, and context to generate at least a portion of the custom content for the user, and the artificial neural network is iteratively retrained based on user interactions or user feedback to refine generation of the custom content. These limitations represent a specific improvement in the operation of a computer-implemented system, namely a neural-network based architecture that continuously adapts its content-generation accuracy through iterative retraining on feedback derived from real-world user interactions.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 21 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.” Here, the present disclosure provides no technical details of implementation regarding any of the features asserted as providing a technical improvement. For example, the disclosure does not provide specifics regarding how the neural network generates content or how the neural network is retrained. Instead, the disclosure appears to only invoke existing techniques in conjunction with an abstract idea rather than providing a technical improvement. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the claimed invention as providing a technical improvement.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 102 and 103 Rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-20: None of the applied references, whether taken individually or in any proper combination, disclose or suggest the above limitations of amended claim 1.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 21 October 2025 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejections under 102 and 103 are withdrawn.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 21 May 2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2025-01-24