DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 17, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 17, 2026, cancelled no claims. Claims 46-47, 49-54, 56-61, and 63-65 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 46-65.
Double Patenting
The Terminal Disclaimer filed on February 4, 2026, has overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 46-65. Thus, the rejections have hereby withdrawn.
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 46-65 are directed to a method, a system, and a computer program product which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 46-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 46, 53, and 60 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner note: one or more networks, the user device, point of interest, geographic area, one or more locations within the geographic are, and subarea of the geographic area have been included as part of the abstract idea because they are outside of the scope of the claimed invention comprising a computer with a memory and one or more processor and, as such, cannot be considered additional elements of the computer with a memory and one or more processor)
obtaining, via one or more networks, information about multiple locations of a user in a geographic area over a period of time by monitoring positioning data of a user device associated with the user within the geographic area;
detecting multiple user visits to one or more locations within the geographic area;
automatically analyzing, responsive to detecting the multiple user visits, the information about the multiple location of the user to identify a destination of interest corresponding to the multiple user visits, wherein the destination of interest comprises a distinct subarea of the geographic area identified as visited one or more of: at least a predetermined minimum number of times, by a at least minimum number of distinct users, or for at least a minimum duration;
generating a location model representative of the destination of interest based on location data points of the multiple user visits, the location model specifying approximate boundaries of the destination of interest determined from the location data points;
identifying a point of interest located at the distinct subarea, such that at least some of the multiple user visits that are used to identify the distinct subarea correspond to user visits to the point of interest; and
automatically determining, after the identifying of the point of interest, that an indicated user has visited the point of interest based on one more location data points of the indicated user being within the approximate boundaries specified by the location model for the destination of interest.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely one or more of commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors; commercial or legal interactions because the recite business relations; and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The claims generate a location model (e.g., map) representing a destination of interests based on multiple user visits, and determine whether a user has visited the destination of interest. The examiner can think of no reason for generating such a map and/or determining that a user has visited the location unless said steps are performed for the purpose of advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Furthermore, the only purposes for generating the claimed model and determining user visits disclosed in the applicant’s disclosure are found in paragraphs 4 and 79 where it is done solely for advertising and/or business relations purposes. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
obtaining, via one or more networks, information about multiple locations of a user in a geographic area over a period of time by monitoring positioning data of a user device associated with the user within the geographic area (receiving data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 15 and 74, as well as, figure 11 of the applicant’s specification); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
obtaining, via one or more networks, information about multiple locations of a user in a geographic area over a period of time by monitoring positioning data of a user device associated with the user within the geographic area (receiving data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 47-52, 54-59, and 61-65 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the information about the multiple locations of the user and/or the obtaining of said information which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 47, 49-52, 54, 56-59, 61, and 63-65: Examiner note the vehicle, and multiple stationary devices have been included as part of the abstract idea because they are outside the scope of the computer with a memory and one or more processor and, as such, cannot be considered additional elements of the computer with a memory and one or more processors.); further limiting the multiple locations of the user which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 48, 55, and 62), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 46-65 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 46-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 46, 53, and 60 have been amended to recite: “generating by the one or more processors a location model representative of the destination of interest based on location data points of the multiple user visits, the location model specifying approximate boundaries of the destination of interest determined from the location data points”. The examiner has been unable to find support for this limitation in the applicant’s disclosure.
While the applicant’s disclosure does support using multiple different location data points from multiple different users to generate a location model specifying approximate boundaries of the destination of interest determined from the location data points, the examiner has been unable to find support for generating such a location model specifying approximate boundaries of the destination of interest based on multiple user visits to one single location in the geographic area. According to the detecting step, the claim is broad enough to encompass detecting multiple user visits to one location within the geographic area. Thus, the generating step requires that the generating of the location model specifying approximate boundaries of the destination of interest must be able to be performed based location data points representing this single location within the geographic area. The examiner has been unable to find support in the applicant’s specification for generating such a location model specifying approximate boundaries when the plurality of location data points all represent the same single location. As such, it is clear that independent claims 46, 53, and 60, as currently amended, fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 47-52, 54-59, and 61-65 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 46-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 46, 53, and 60, as currently amended, include a number of antecedent basis issues that make it impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The first limitation of claims 46, 53, and 60 obtains information of multiple locations of a user in a geographic area over time. At this point in the claim the only information obtained is a single users multiple locations in the geographic area. The second limitation requires detecting multiple user visits to a location within the geographic area. One of ordinary skill would expect that the “user” in the detecting of multiple user visits to the location to have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “a user”, since this is the only person for which the claim has obtained location information in the geographic area. However, this does not appear to be the case. In the analyzing step, the destination of interest corresponds to the multiple user visits and comprises a distinct subarea of the geographic area identified as visited one or more of (i) a least a predetermined minimum number of times, (ii) by at least a minimum number of distinct users, or (iii) for at least a minimum duration. Looking at each of criteria (i), (ii), and (iii), we find that the “user” in the claimed “multiple user visits” cannot have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “a user”. Assuming that the “user” in the claimed “multiple user visits” had antecedent basis to the previously claimed “a user”, criteria (i) could be satisfied when the multiple locations of the user indicate that “the user” has visited a distinct sub area at least a predetermined number of times. Thus, criteria (i) could be satisfied with the anticipated antecedent basis. The problem arises when we analyze criteria (ii). The only way in which criteria (ii) could occur is if new location information from a plurality of distinct users is obtained; then detecting multiple distinct user visits using this new location information; and finally determining that a minimum number of the distinct users have visited the distinct subarea. I would not be possible to identify a destination of interest corresponding to the multiple user visits, wherein the destination of interest comprises a distinct subarea of the geographic are identified as visited by at least a minimum number of distinct users if the “user” in multiple user visits had antecedent basis to the previously claimed “a user”, because all visits would be by the user. As such, it would appear that the claimed “multiple user visits” must be intended to be interpreted as “multiple user visits from a plurality of distinct users”. However, if we apply this interpretation, criteria (i) becomes indefinite. Since, the visits using this interpretation are multiple user visits from the plurality of distinct users, the claimed “at least a predetermined minimum number of times could be intended to refer to a single distinct user of the plurality of distinct users visiting the subarea at least a minimum number of time or it could be intended to refer to the aggregate number of visits to the subarea by the plurality of distinct users reaching a predetermined number. Next, criteria (iii) requires that a minimum duration of a visit occur. Irrespective of whether the “user” in “multiple user visits” is intended have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “a user” or is intended to be interpreted as “multiple user visits from a plurality of distinct users”, criteria (iii) is indefinite. For a minimum duration of a visit to be determined one must know the time in which the user or a distinct user of the plurality of distinct users arrived at the location and departed from the location. No such information is being obtained by the claims. The information regarding the user which is obtained is regarding multiple user locations of the user in the geographic area over a period of time. Multiple user locations obtained by monitoring positioning data of the user device just identified the locations that the device was at and not the time the device remained at said location. If the applicant were to amend the claim to recite obtaining information about multiple locations of a user in a geographic area over a period of time and a duration of time the user was located at each location of the multiple locations, then the applicant invention might be able to determined that the information indicates the user was at a previous location of the multiple location for a minimum duration. However, without obtaining such duration information one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention could implement criteria (iii). Likewise, if the multiple user visits is intended to be interpreted as “multiple user visits from a plurality of distinct users”, these visits just indicate that the multiple users have visited a location within the geographic area. There is no indication that the duration of such visits is obtained in any way. As such, it would not appear to be possible to determine the claimed duration. Additionally, irrespective of which interpretation is used, one of ordinary skill in the art could not determine whether the minimum duration is supposed to be for a single previous visit, a single current visit, or an aggregated duration comprising the sum of the duration for each visit. As such, it is clear that independent claims 46, 53, and 60, as currently amended, are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Next, the newly added limitation of “after the identifying of the point of interest, automatically determining, by the one or more processors, that an indicated user has visited the point of interest based on one or more location data points of the indicated user being within the approximate boundaries specified by the location model for the destination of interest” is indefinite. The term “an indicated user” does not have antecedent basis to either the previously claimed “a user” or, depending on the interpretation of “multiple user visits”, “a distinct user of the plurality of distinct users”. As such, it is impossible to determine whether the claims “an indicated user” is supposed to be some new type of user that somehow the invention has indicated, the user which the invention has somehow indicated, or a distinct user of the plurality of distinct users that the invention has somehow indicated. Even if one could determine which of these possible indicated users the applicant intends, one or ordinary skill in the art could not determine how the invention actually “indicated” the user so that the determining could be performed. As each of the above interpretations results in a claim with a different scope, claims 46, 53, and 60, as currently amended, are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 47-52, 54-59, and 61-65 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 46-65 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections, the 35 USC 112(a) rejections, and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner has found prior art (see Herz et al.: 2006/0069749; and Vengroff et al.: 2007/0185768) which disclose a computer-implemented method, a system, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions for determining location-related information of interest, comprising:
memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the steps of:
obtaining, via one or more networks, information about multiple locations of a user in a geographic area over a period of time by monitoring positioning data of a user device associated with the user within the geographic area;
detecting multiple user visits to one or more locations within the geographic area;
automatically analyzing, responsive to detecting the multiple user visits to one or more locations within the geographic area, the information about the multiple locations of the user to identify a destination of interest corresponding to the multiple user visits, wherein the destination of interest comprises a distinct subarea of the geographic area identified as visited one or more of (i) at least a predetermined minimum of times, (ii) by a at least minimum number of distinct users, or (iii) for at least a minimum duration;
generatin a location model (e.g., a map) representative of the destination of interest, the location model specifying approximate boundaries of the destination of interest;
identifying a point of interest located at the distinct subarea, such that at least some of the multiple user visits that are used to identify the distinct subarea correspond to user visits to the point of interest; and
automatically determining, after the identifying of the point of interest, that the user has visited the point of interest based on one or more location data points of the user being within the approximate boundaries specified by the location model for the destination of interest.
However, in the prior art of Herz and Vengroff, the location model (e.g., map) is not generated based on location data points of the multiple user visits. The examiner has been unable to find prior art, which would be obvious to combine, with the prior art of Herz and Vengroff, without the use of impermissible hindsight by utilizing the applicant’s claims as a roadmap which discloses: “generating a location model representative of the destination of interest based on location data points of the multiple user visits, the location model specifying approximate boundaries of the destination of interest determined from the location data points”.
Therefore, claims 46-65 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections, the 35 USC 112(a) rejections, and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant arguments with regards to the Step 2a, Prong 1 analysis are not convincing. While the applicant has amended the claims to remove the step of providing the indication of the subarea corresponding to the point of interest, this does not mean that the steps are not performed for the purpose of advertising, marketing, or sales. As such, they still recite advertising, marketing, or sales activities. The claims generate a location model (e.g., map) representing a destination of interests based on multiple user visits. For what purpose might such a location model (e.g, map) be generated if not for advertising, marketing or sales activities? Likewise, the claims require identifying that a user has visited to point of interest. For what purpose would such identifying be performed if not for advertising, marketing, or sales? According to the applicant’s specification in paragraphs 4 and 79 indicate that both steps are performed for advertising purposes. Can the examiner think of other possible applications? Yes, perhaps the location model (e.g., map) is for navigation purposes which would be managing interactions; perhaps determining that visits occur could be used for necessary road planning, road repair or road maintenance around a point of interest but then the claim would be reciting business relations. Maybe it is for merely maintaining a database of points of interest, but once again this is business relations. The examiner is unable to think of reason for performing the claimed steps that is not directed to one of the enumerated subcategories of abstract idea and no such purpose is specified in the applicant’s disclosure. Even if the applicant were to remove last two steps of the claim such that the identifying and automatically determining steps were no longer claimed, the generating of the location model (e.g., map) would still be a fundamental economic practice. As such, the claims are clearly broad enough to encompass said steps reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing, and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 because they recite an improvement to location-determination technology. The examiner disagrees. The claims recite no specific location-determination technology. Instead, the receive location information from users in the standard way. Then, the claims analyze the received locati0n information, determine results based on the analysis (e.g., the approximate boundaries of the point of interest). There is no specific technology required in performing said steps. Instead, the steps outline a business practice for approximating the boundaries of a point of interest which means they are part of the abstract idea itself. As such, said step cannot be considered an improvement in technology according to MPEP 2106 (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology). As such, the claims merely require applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer. There are no technologies recited in the claims which would be capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. What the applicant refers to as a technical solution to a technical problem appears to be a business solution to a business problem because the claims require no specific technology for implementing said solution. Therefore, any purported improvement obtained from practicing the claim is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer as a tool. Improvement of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (see the SAP v Investpic decision - Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing, and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant asserts that the examiner has improperly treated the one or more networks, user device, position data, geographic area, subarea, and point of interest. The examiner strongly disagrees. First, with respect to the network and user device, the applicant’s claims are to a method implemented by a computer, a system comprising said computer, and a computer program product executable by said computer. As such, the scope of the applicant’s claims are limited to said computer and it’s functions. Therefore, the network and user device are outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and, as such, cannot be considered “additional elements” of the claimed invention. Since these devices are abstract devices that the applicant’s computer is expected to receive information over and/or from. Therefore, including such abstract devices as part of the abstract idea itself is perfectly acceptable USPTO practice, because they cannot be considered “additional elements” of the applicant invented computer. Next, with respect to the position data, geographic area, subarea, and point of interest, these are all just data. While the geographic area, subarea, and point of interest may be real world locations represented as data, they are still just data. As such, the examiner must consider these items as part of the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the applicant’s assertion is not convincing, and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step2b. because generating a location model (e.g., a map) from positioning data with boundaries determined from location data points and applying the model to detect subsequent visits is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. The examiner strongly disagrees. The applicant appears to be misconstruing MPEP 2106 with regards to Step 2b. In order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2b, it is the “additional elements” of the claims that must be considered significantly more than the abstract idea. “Additional elements” are defined as those portions of the claim which are not part of the abstract idea itself. The only “additional elements” of the instant claims are “a memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory” which is merely a general-purpose computer with generic computer components. The claims merely require that the abstract idea be applied using the general-purpose computer with generic computer components as a tool. As such, the claims are incapable of being considered “significantly more” under Step 2b. There is absolutely no requirement under Step 2b, that the steps of an abstract idea must be well-understood, routine or conventional. In fact, the SAP decision makes it clear that an improvement to an abstract idea can be groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, but the claims still be ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing, and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections are not convincing. As detailed above, the claims as amended have failed to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections. Thus, the rejections have been maintained to the extent described in the rejection above.
The applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 USC 103 rejections are moot as the claim amendment has overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kostov et al. (Analysis of appropriate timing for information notification based on indoor user's location transitions", January 2006, Fourth Annual IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications, pgs 472-475) which discloses an analysis of advertisement effectiveness based on a user location and subsequent changes in location using temporal data regarding the time at the user location and the time since leaving the user location;
Krishnaswamy: (PGPUB: 2011/0282964) that discloses training a location model based on a first training dataset that comprises location information associated with a geographic location and retraining the location model based on a second training dataset that comprises updated location information to provide a refined location model;
Gayama: (PGPUB 2002/0156830) that discloses determining a user’s current location or predicted destination based on the user’s usual location during the time period and providing information relevant to the user’s usual location during the time period;
Scofield et al. (U.S. Patent: 9,516,470) which discloses tracking a user’s mobile device via GPS information or mobile-signal triangulation, wherein the user's recent movements may be analyzed to determine trails or traffic patterns for device user among various locations, an analysis is performed to determine a next destination for the user and electronic advertising content, such as advertisements, coupons and/or other communications, associated with the next destination may be sent to the mobile device;
Krumm et al. (U.S. Patent: 8,024,112) which discloses inferring probability distributions over the destinations and/or routes of a user, from observations about context and partial trajectories of a trip, wherein destinations of a trip are based on at least one of a prior and a likelihood based at least in part on the received input data such as one or more of a personal destinations prior, time of day and day of week, a ground cover prior, driving efficiency associated with candidate locations, and a trip time likelihood to probabilistically predict the destination;
Ross (EP1379098A1) which discloses processing location based information acquired over a period of time to determine that a given mobile device user tends to remain around certain places, such as his home, his workplace, where he goes out to dinner, wherein the location data for each mobile device is used to define one or more geographic regions in which the mobile device is often located; assigning density metric to each region, generally corresponding to the frequency with which the mobile device has been in that region; applying a time decay factor continuously is applied to the density metric of each region, such that older location data become less important than newer location data; and then providing this information to location based services.
Ling et al. (PGPUB: 2006/0206610) which discloses partitioning a geographic area into a plurality of sub-areas and associating resources to the sub-areas based on the location of mobile units within a sub-area; tracking the user’s movements through the various sub-areas; transmitting content specific to the sub-area in which a user is currently located; and inhibiting access to content not allowed to be accessed in said sub-area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm 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, Spar Ilana can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
