DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/26 has been entered, in which Applicant amended claims 1, 6, 13, and 17. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending in the present application and is under examination on the merit..
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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-21 has been maintained in light of Applicant’s explanations.
The 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-21 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s explanations.
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 1-4 and 6-21 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. Here, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, Examiner finds that the Applicant invented a method and system for determining demand in a particular geographic area and scheduling deployment of mobile site based on the demand. Examiner formulates an abstract idea analysis, following the framework described in the MPEP as follows:
Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category, namely a "method" (claims 17-21) and "system" (claims 1-4 and 6-16).
Step 2A - Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, regarding claim 1:
obtain geotagged metadata of data exchange associated with a financial institution from a first device;
obtain additional data from an external data source associated with the data exchange at a location;
merge the geotagged metadata and the data exchange with the additional data to create enriched data;
analyze the enriched data to determine an estimated demand for future data exchange associated with the financial institution at the location at a time;
determine that the estimated demand for the future data exchange at the location at the time exceeds a predetermined threshold;
automatically pre-schedule deployment of a mobile site of the financial institution at the location for the time associated with the future data exchange;
predict, based on the enriched data, that a second device will enter an area near the location at the time associated with the future data exchange using location-related data associated with the data exchange
Independent claims 13 and 17 recite substantially similar claim language.
Dependent claims 2-4 6-12, 14-16, and 18-21 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claims 1, 13, and 17 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) to particular data characterization and/or additional data analyses performed as part of the abstract idea.
The limitations in claims 1-4 and 6-21 above falling well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts, specifically the claims are found to correspond to the category of:
"Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" as the limitations identified above are directed to determining demand in a particular geographic area and scheduling deployment of mobile site based on the demand and thus is a method of organizing human activity including at least commercial or business interactions or relations and/or a management of user personal behavior; and/or
"Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)" as the limitations identified above include mere data observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, e.g. including user observation and evaluation of demand in a particular geographic area and scheduling deployment of mobile site based on the demand, which is capable of being performed mentally and/or using pen and paper.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the claims recite the additional elements of:
" A system comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one hardware processor interoperably coupled with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions instruct the at least one hardware processor to: / A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions executable by a computer and configured to instruct the computer to: / A computerized method performed by one or more processors, the method comprising: " (claims 1, 13, and 17) however the aforementioned elements merely amount to generic components of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, furthermore the high-level recitation of receiving data from a generic "system" is at most an attempt to limit the abstract to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.0S(h), e.g.: "For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).") and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPE 2106.05(g)) and thus further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
" wherein the estimated demand for future data exchange at the location at the time is based at least in part on providing the enriched data to a trained neural network" (claim 9) however the receiving of data from these various sources is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering, and/or merely an attempt at limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. MPEP 2106.0S(h): "Examiners should keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05{g)). For instance a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017} (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).");
" transmit a notification to the second device regarding availability of the mobile site of the financial institution at the location at the time associated with the future data exchange " (claims 1, 13, and 17), “wherein transmitting the notification comprises: detecting that the second device enters an area around the mobile site at the location using location-related data provided by a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver associated with the second device… transmit a notification to the second device regarding availability of the mobile site,” (claims 4, 12, and 20) however the sending and receiving of data from a user input device is merely the use of a general purpose computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and/or is merely insignificant extra- solution activity including data gathering over a network (MPEP 2106.0S(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1-4 and 6-21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.0S(f)), including merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use of determining demand in a particular geographic area and scheduling deployment of mobile site based on the demand using a "system,” as explained above, and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering or output, (MPEP 2106.0S(g)), as identified above, which is further found under step 2B to be merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to determining demand in a particular geographic area and scheduling deployment of mobile site based on the demand.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis
For further authority and guidance, see:
MPEP § 2106
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are found to be provisionally allowable. The claim would be found to be allowable if it overcame the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Subject Matter Overcoming the Prior Art of Record
It appears that the instant invention is beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly the invention would NOT have been obvious because one of ordinary skill could not have been expected to achieve it, NOR would they have been able to predict the results, and as such, they would have had no capability of expecting success.
The following is an examiner's statement of features not found in the prior art of record:
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 overcomes the prior art of record and are found to be provisionally allowable. The following limitations of claim 1,
…
obtain geotagged metadata of data exchange associated with a financial institution from a first device;
obtain additional data from an external data source associated with the data exchange at a location;
merge the geotagged metadata and the data exchange with the additional data to create enriched data;
analyze the enriched data to determine an estimated demand for future data exchange associated with the financial institution at the location at a time;
determine that the estimated demand for the future data exchange at the location at the time exceeds a predetermined threshold;
automatically pre-schedule deployment of a mobile site of the financial institution at the location for the time associated with the future data exchange; and
predict, based on the enriched data, that a second device will enter an area near the location at the time associated with the future data exchange using location-related data associated with the data exchange; and
transmit a notification to the second device regarding availability of the mobile site of the financial institution at the location at the time associated with the future data exchange.
in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations are neither taught nor suggested, singularly or in combination, by the prior art of record. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings. Independent claims 13 and 17 and dependent claims 2-4, 6-12, 14-16, and 18-21 are likewise found to be provisionally allowable.
The closest prior art of record is described as follows:
Zaheer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0034966) - The abstract provides for the following: An interface is processed for dynamically rendering an interactive geographical map. Custom-defined geographical boundaries are defined within the map. Customers currently geolocated within the geographical boundaries are identified. A custom-defined promotion is dynamically sent to devices operated by the customers and located within the geographical boundaries.
Inbar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0170204) - The abstract provides for the following: The present invention provides a system for providing marketing information comprising: a. at least one server adapted to host: (i) at least one video file; and (it) at least one CAPTCHA adapted to display marketing information; b. at least one screen in communication with at least one server; at least one screen displays at least one video file; wherein at least one CAPTCHA is accessible via the display at least one point in time prior to end of display of the video-file; further wherein the successful completion of the CAPTCHA results in skipping the display of remainder of at least one video-file).
Achin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0339572) - The abstract provides for the following: Systems and techniques for predictive data analytics are described. In a method for selecting a predictive model for a prediction problem, the suitabilities of predictive modeling procedures for the prediction problem may be determined based on characteristics of the prediction problem and/or on attributes of the respective modeling procedures. A subset of the predictive modeling procedures may be selected based on the determined suitabilities of the selected modeling procedures for the prediction problem. A resource allocation schedule allocating computational resources for execution of the selected modeling procedures may be generated, based on the determined suitabilities of the selected modeling procedures for the prediction problem. Results of the execution of the selected modeling procedures in accordance with the resource allocation schedule may be obtained. A predictive model for the prediction problem may be selected based on those results.
Dermer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0197949) - The abstract provides for the following: A mobile food management system includes: a controller in communication with a lot owner's user interface and one or more vendor's user interfaces; a food truck lot management application accessible through the lot owner's user interface, the food truck lot management application adapted to receive a customized rule set, the customized rule set including one or more prioritization rules associated with a food truck lot; one or more food truck lot reservation applications accessible through the one or more vendor's user interfaces, the food truck lot reservation application adapted to receive one or more reservation requests; wherein the controller is adapted to receive the customized rule set from the food truck lot management application; receive one or more reservation requests from the one or more food truck lot reservation applications; and apply the customized rule set to the one or more reservation requests to determine a booking plan.
Chuck Ballard et al. “Moving Forward with the On Demand Real-time Enterprise,” The abstract provides for the following: The objective of this Redbook is to discuss and demonstrate these current techniques and technologies, along with the strategies, architectures, and capabilities for implementing a real-time enterprise (RTE). To do so, we describe a real-time enterprise, present appropriate architectures, and describe the required components that can support it.
Edwards et al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication Number WO 2010/118003 A2) - The abstract provides for the following: Embodiments are directed towards enabling telecommunications networked services providers to maximize sales of products, services, content, and applications to their customers by detecting contextual occasions in which to present a customer an offering of a product, service, content, or application. The occasion may be defined for the customer within their cultural environment by ethnographic research and anthropological modeling. The occurrence of a contextual occasion may be realized for a customer, in part, based on predictive and behavioral analytics of demographic, behavioral, and/or psychographic customer attributes. The customer's activities, location, time, social network activity, and events occurring in the world are also monitored to identify or predict an occurrence of the targeted occasion in which to present a contextually relevant product, service, content, and/or application offering to the customer..
Response to Argument
Applicants arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 12/19/2025, pgs. 10-13). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 USC 101 analysis presented above, the claims recite an abstract concept that is encapsulated by decision making analogous to a method of organizing human activity. Examiner notes that each of the limitations that encapsulate the abstract concepts are recited in the above 35 USC 101. Additionally, the claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract concepts in that there is no specific use or application of the method steps other than to make conclusory determinations or to further implement abstract concepts that further organize human activities (i.e. humans completing tasks). The claims do not recite any particular use for these determinations that improve upon the underlying computer technology. Instead, Examiner asserts that the claim language is only used as implementation of the abstract concepts utilizing technology. The claims are not directed towards the technology, but are instead directed towards the overarching abstract concepts and in this way is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, Examiner does not find that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract concepts recited by the claims nor do the claims recite significantly more than the underlying abstract concepts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571)270-0166. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. H. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624