DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on February 4, 2026 cancelled no claims. Claims 46-47, 53, and 60-61 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 Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.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 satisfying one or more specified criteria, wherein the one or more specified criteria comprises a minimum threshold amount of time a user is present at a location;
automatically analyzing, responsive to detecting multiple user visits to one or more locations within the geographic area, the obtained information for the user to identify a distinct subarea of the geographic area identified as a destination of interest corresponding to the multiple user visits and generating a representation of the destination of interest, wherein the destination of interest satisfies one or more of a predetermined minimum threshold number of visits, a predetermined minimum threshold number of distinct user visits, or a predetermined minimum threshold aggregate user visit duration;
identifying a point of interest located at the identified subarea, such that at least some of the multiple user visits that are used to identify the subarea correspond to user visits to the identified point of interest; and
providing one or more indications of the identified subarea that corresponds to the point of interest.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. 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 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); and
providing one or more indications of the identified subarea that corresponds to the point of interest (transmitting 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 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); and
providing one or more indications of the identified subarea that corresponds to the point of interest (transmitting 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 obtained/obtaining information about multiple locations of the user which is 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 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. Claims 46, 53, and 60 first require “obtaining…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”. As such, the obtained information is regarding a single first user and the multiple locations of said single first user. The claims then next require “detecting multiple user visits to one or more locations within the geographic area satisfying one or more specified criteria, wherein the one or more specified criteria comprises a minimum threshold amount of time a user is present at a location”. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the “multiple user visits” to have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “a user”, and interpret the limitation to require the invention to detect that the user has visited the one or more locations within the geographic area multiple times. However, the second claimed “a user” does not have antecedent basis to the first claimed “a user” and, therefore, it would appear to be at least one additional user. As such, the applicant may intend the claimed “multiple user visits” to be either multiple users visiting or alternatively multiple visits from each of a plurality of users. As each of the above interpretations results in a claim with a different scope, the claims 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.
Additionally, the claims require “responsive to detecting multiple user visits to one or more locations within the geographic area” performing additional steps. The claimed “detecting” does not have proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed “detecting”, the claimed “multiple user visits” does not have proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed “multiple user visits”, and the claimed “one or more locations” does not have proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed “one or more locations”. In order for these terms to have proper antecedent basis to these previously claimed terms, the limitation would need use the term “the” or “said” before the previously claimed terms, such “responsive to the detecting of the multiple user visits to the one or more locations within the geographic area”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine: whether the remainder of the claim is performed responsive to the previously recited “detecting” or whether this is an additional detecting step regarding “multiple user visits”, whether the “multiple user visits” are the previously claimed “multiple user visits” or a new “multiple user visits” with a different intended meaning from previously claim “multiple user visits” which is not subject to the previously claimed criteria; and/or whether the “one or more locations” is intended to be the previously claimed “one or more locations” or whether the applicant intends these multiple user visits to be to a different one or more location with the geographic area. As each of the above interpretations results in a claim with a different scope, the claims 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.
Additionally, the claims require “automatically analyzing, by the one or more processors, the obtained information for the user to identify a distinct subarea of the geographic area identified as a destination of interest corresponding to the multiple user visits”. While it is likely that this limitation is referring to the previously claimed “obtaining” step and the first claimed “a user” found therein, such antecedent basis is not required. Given that the second claimed “a user” in the detecting step would inherently require obtaining information about this second claimed “a user” locations in the geographic area, it is possible that the applicant intends “the user” being claimed to have antecedent basis to the second claimed “a user”, and “the obtaining” to have antecedent basis to the inherently required obtaining step that would be required to perform the claimed detecting. This second interpretation may even be more likely the applicant’s intent because the obtaining step did not recite “multiple user visits” but instead recited “information about multiple locations of a user”, whereas, the detecting step did recite “multiple user visits”. Of course, the claimed “the multiple user visits” may not be intended to have antecedent basis to the first claimed “multiple user visits” found in the detecting step, as the applicant may intend “the multiple user visits” to have antecedent basis to the second claimed “multiple user visits” found in the responsive step. However, if this were the case, then it would be impossible to determine whether the claimed “the user” should have antecedent basis to the first claimed “a user” or the second claimed “a user” because either interpretation could be the intended interpretation. As each of the above interpretations results in a claim with a different scope, the claims 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.
Finally, the claims require “generating a representation of the destination of interest, wherein the destination of interest satisfies one or more of (i) a predetermined minimum threshold number of user visits, (ii) a predetermined minimum threshold number of distinct user visits, or (iii) a predetermined minimum threshold aggregate user visit duration”. The claimed “the destination of interest” has proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed “a destination of interest” in the analyzing step, but one or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the intended metes and bounds of the claimed “number of user visits”, the “distinct user visits”, and the claimed “aggregate user visit duration”. Nowhere in the claim is the “information about multiple locations of a user” in the obtaining step required to be one of the “multiple user visits” to the “one or more locations” in the detecting step. Likewise, nowhere in the claim is the ”distinct subarea” or “destination of interest” required to be one of the “one or more locations” in the detecting step or the “one or more locations” the responsive step. Instead, the analyzing limitation merely requires some type of correspondence between such a subarea and “the multiple user visits” which could have antecedent basis to the multiple user visits to the one or more locations in the detecting step or have antecedent basis to the multiple user visits to the one or more locations found in the “responsive to detecting step”, which could be a second detecting step not associated with the first detecting step. As such, when the applicant claims “number of user visits”, “distinct user visits”, and “aggregate user visit duration”, it is impossible to determine what the intend of these limitations might be. Is the “number of user visits” intended to be visits the first user has made to: the subarea; a location of the first one or more locations in the subarea; a location of the second one or more locations in the subarea, a location of the first one or more locations irrespective of whether the location is in the subarea; or a location of the second one or more locations irrespective of whether the location is in the subarea? Perhaps, the applicant intends in the “number of user visits” not be visits of the first claimed “a user” at all. Does the applicant intend the “number of user visits” to be visits to one of the above possible locations that are made by one or more users of the “multiple user visits”? If so, would it require a count of each of a plurality of users to visit the location a plurality of times or does it merely require that a count is made regarding the number of a plurality of users have visited the location? All of the same questions apply to the claimed “distinct user visits” and “aggregate user visit duration”. Which of the at least four identified possible location does the applicant intend to be visited? Which user or plurality of users does the intend the number of distinct user visits to be based? Which user or users does the applicant intent to aggregate duration for? As each of the above interpretations results in a claim with a different scope, the claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 46-65 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herz et al. (PGPUB: 2006/0069749) in view of Vengroff et al. (PGPUB: 2007/0185768).
Claims 46, 53 and 60: Herz discloses 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 (Paragraph 39), 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 (Paragraph 5: the location enhanced information delivery system can be supported with conventional or advanced networking infrastructures; Paragraph 39: user profiles and advertiser profiles may be remotely accessed through a “distributed access” architecture by which the user profiles are retrieved from an information provider using one or more means of communication, such as data communication network; Paragraph 48: information that is relevant to a traveler as they enter a new region or as they physically pass points of interest or available activities which are customized to the particular interests of the traveler; Paragraph 63: obtaining user information as they travel with a portable user terminal device or pass electronic displays; Paragraph 64: storing user location information in a user profile; Paragraph 66: using location information of the user to push information to a user as they move around in an environment; Paragraph 68: location information indicating a user is in location X, location information indicating the user disappears from location X; followed by location information indicating the user is in a location very close to location X; Paragraph 105: collecting changes to the customers present location of a user as they move through a store; Paragraph 69: user location data may include a time attribute; Paragraph 74: taking into consideration time and location to improve overall performance, such a time patterns established by combining the user’s profile and the target object physically visited; Paragraphs 103-104: notifying users of products or other items of interest identified to be of personal interest to the user at such time that the user approaches the item geographically; detecting that the user is enroute to; planning to visit; or physically at a location, wherein it can be detected that a person is physically at a first location in a store and planning to visit a second location in the store or another store);
detecting multiple user visits to one or more locations within the geographic area satisfying one or more specified criteria, wherein the one or more specified criteria comprises a minimum threshold amount of time a user is present at a location (Paragraphs 74-75: user profiles are updated in accordance with the target object profiles the user visits and time patterns established by combining the user’s profile and the target object physically visited; Paragraphs 91-96: a very detailed shopper profile is constructed over the course of several visits to a store, wherein the products purchased, kinds of promotions provided, and timing associated with said visits allow for conducting time series analysis to detect patterns);
Herz discloses detecting multiple user visits to one or more locations within the geographic area satisfying one or more specified criteria and the time duration that the user is present at a location in at least paragraphs 74-75 and 91-96 (Paragraphs 74-75: user profiles are updated in accordance with the target object profiles the user visits and time patterns established by combining the user’s profile and the target object physically visited; Paragraphs 91-96: a very detailed shopper profile is constructed over the course of several visits to a store, wherein the products purchased, kinds of promotions provided, and timing associated with said visits allow for conducting time series analysis to detect patterns)
Herz does not disclose the one or more specified criteria comprises a minimum threshold amount of time a user is present at a location for a visit to be detected.
However, the analogous art of Vengroff discloses that it is known for one or more criteria for detecting a visit to be a minimum threshold amount of time a user is present at a location in at least paragraph 40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was made, to modify the invention of Herz to include the criteria for a visit to require a minimum threshold of time a user is present at a location as disclosed by Vengroff.
The rational for doing so is that it merely requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It can be seen that each element claimed is taught in either Herz or Vengroff. Requiring that a duration of the user at a location exceed a minimum threshold amount of time before a visit is counted (as taught by Vengroff) does not change nor effect the normal functions of the updating user profiles based on user multiple user visits to one or more locations within the geographic area or the detecting of patterns based on time series analysis as taught by Herz. Since the functionalities of the elements in Herz and Vengroff do not interfere with each other the results of the combination would be predictable in that a user merely passing by the location would not be counted as a visit.
automatically analyzing, responsive to detecting multiple user visits to one or more locations within the geographic area, the obtained information for the user to identify a distinct subarea of the geographic area identified as a destination of interest corresponding to the multiple user visits and generating a representation of the destination of interest, wherein the destination of interest satisfies one or more of (i) a predetermined minimum threshold number of user visits, (ii) a predetermined minimum threshold number of distinct user visits, or (iii) a predetermined minimum threshold aggregate user visit duration;
Herz and Vengroff, as previously combined, discloses automatically analyzing, responsive to detecting multiple user visits to one or more locations within the geographic area, the obtained information for the user to identify a distinct subarea of the geographic area identified as a destination of interest corresponding to the multiple user visits, wherein the destination of interest satisfies one or more of (i) a predetermined minimum threshold number of user visits, (ii) a predetermined minimum threshold number of distinct user visits, or (iii) a predetermined minimum threshold aggregate user visit duration, and generating an advertisement for a retailer in the distinct subarea of the geographic area in at least paragraphs 40-41, 51, 74, 78, 86, 92, and 98-100 of Herz ((Herz – Paragraph 40-41 and 63: providing location based advertisements based on an advertiser required count of the number of distinct users in proximity to the location of the retailer (note: the proximity is considered the distinct subarea which is also the destination of interest, thus the predetermined minimum threshold is the advertisers required count of distinct users that are currently visiting the subarea); Paragraph 51: providing discounts to frequent customers; Paragraph 74: analysis includes combining the user's profile and the target object of an item browsed or purchased and/or physically visited, in light of location—time patterns; Paragraphs 78: determine a proximity (e.g., geographic area) around a user’s present location, determine subareas (e.g., restaurants and hotels) in the proximity (e.g., geographic area) of the user, wherein the user’s present location is one that they have several visits as cited above; Paragraph 86: matching a service (point of interest) to a user based on physical proximity, wherein the user’s present location is one that they have has several visits as cited above; Paragraph 92: time series techniques can augment the capabilities of the collaborative filter, spotting patterns in cyclical or impulse purchases. This is accomplished by performing frequency analysis on the main categories of a shopper's purchases; more irregular temporal patterns can be picked up using standard pattern recognition techniques; include the number of times the customer makes specific purchases in a given time period; Paragraph 98-100: identifying a user that is part of a customer loyalty program of a vendor as the user passes within geographic area proximate to the location of a vendor’s store (e.g., subarea of the geographic area), and providing the user with an advertisement from the vendor store (e.g., destination of interest)).
Herz and Vengroff, as previously combined, do not disclose and generating a representation of the destination of interest.
However, the analogous art of Vengroff discloses that it is known to generate a representation of the destination of interest (e.g., map of the area including the location of the advertiser), and include it as part of an advertisement in at least paragraphs 18-19, 24, and 35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was made, to modify the invention of Herz and Vengroff, as previously combined, to include generate a representation of the destination of interest (e.g., map of the area including the location of the advertiser), and include it as part of an advertisement as disclosed by Vengroff.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The references as previously combined disclosed generating an advertisement for a retailer in the subarea. The sole difference between Herz and Vengroff, as previously combined, and the claimed subject matter is that the generation of a representation of the subarea which is the destination of interest is not disclosed. The reference of Vengroff discloses the generation of an advertisement that includes the generation of a representation of the subarea (e.g., map). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitutions of advertisement with a map for the advertisement along. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing predictable results in that the user is now able to navigate the subarea to arrive at the location of the retailer being advertised.
identifying a point of interest located at the identified subarea, such that at least some of the multiple user visits that are used to identify the subarea correspond to user visits to the identified point of interest (Herz - Paragraph 105: identifying an ideal shopping route in a store (e.g., subarea) such that such that the distance traveled to obtain items on a shopping list and the location of the items in the store (e.g., points of interest with the store) is optimized; Paragraphs 78: determine a proximity (e.g., geographic area) around a user’s present location, determine subareas (e.g., restaurants and hotels) in the proximity (e.g., geographic area) of the user, wherein the user’s present location is one that they have has several visits as cited above; Paragraph 86: matching a service (point of interest) to a user based on physical proximity, wherein the user’s present location is one that they have has several visits as cited above); and
providing one or more indications of the identified subarea that corresponds to the point of interest (Herz - Paragraph 105: providing information about the location of products (e.g., points of interest) in the store (e.g., identified subarea) and/or recommending an ideal shopping route within the store (e.g., subarea) based on the product locations (e.g., points of interest); Paragraph 86: providing an indication of a service (point of interest) matched to a user based on physical proximity, wherein the user’s present location is one that they have has several visits as cited above;).
Claims 47, 54, and 61: Herz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 46, the system of claim 53, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 60, wherein the obtained information about multiple locations of the user includes GPS coordinates for at least one of the multiple locations. (Herz – Paragraph 27: the one or more location identifiers include an identifier from a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver)
Claims 48, 55, and 62: Herz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 47, the system of claim 54, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 61, wherein the multiple locations of the user are part of one or more travel paths of the user traveling in the geographic area, wherein the one or more travel paths include a sequence of multiple location data points. (Herz - Paragraphs 20-21: rates and direction of user motion can be calculated; thus, an advertisement can be scheduled so that it is visible to a customer during the passage of a particular customer or set of customers past a predefined location; the user movement direction information can be used to ensure that the information selected for display is not based upon the presence of customers who are approaching the display from its back side and therefore cannot view the displayed information; Paragraph 66: using location information of the user to push information to a user as they move around in an environment; Paragraph 68: location information indicating a user is in location X, location information indicating the user disappears from location X; followed by location information indicating the user is in a location very close to location X; Paragraph 105: collecting changes to the customers present location of a user as they move through a store; Paragraphs 103-104: notifying users of products or other items of interest identified to be of personal interest to the user at such time that the user approaches the item geographically; detecting that the user is enroute to; planning to visit; or physically at a location, wherein it can be detected that a person is physically at a first location in a store and planning to visit a second location in the store or another store; Paragraph 109: dynamic characteristics such as presence at a particular location; motion in a particular direction; rate of motion in a particular direction and characteristics of an information display, such as its location and directionality )
Claims 49, 56, and 63: Herz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 46, the system of claim 53, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 61, wherein obtaining information about multiple locations of a user includes obtaining the information from the user device via one or more wireless transmissions. (Herz - Paragraphs 24 and 27: the user terminal device can be a hand-held computer, pager, cellular telephone, a PCS telephone and contain a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver; Paragraph 26: the users' terminal devices provide signals that can be sensed and that the location enhanced information delivery system is able to provide a per-device identifier called a “location identifier”; a user terminal device, such as a wireless subscriber station, is detected by a user terminal device specific sensor in sensor subsystem, which provides a location identifier LID as an output; Paragraph 109: while the preferred embodiment discloses a beaconing-style wireless technology, the system concept is easily extensible both to other location-information systems, such as license-plate scanning with cameras)
Claims 50, 57, and 64: Herz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 46, the system of claim 53, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 61, wherein the obtained information about the multiple locations of the user is tracked within a vehicle in which the user is traveling. (Herz -Paragraph 52: the user providing the location information is traveling in a vehicle; Paragraph 27, 97, and 109: location information can be obtained by license-plate scanning with cameras; the user terminal can be an anti-theft device for an automobile; a navigational user interface of the automobile)
Claim 51, 58, and 65: Herz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 46, the system of claim 53, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 61, wherein the obtained information about the multiple locations of the user is tracked by multiple stationary devices proximate to the user. (Herz - Paragraph 105: the obtained information can be obtained by infrared detectors mounted on the ceiling of the store which enables triangulation of the shopper's present location; Paragraph 18, 27 and 109: location information can be obtained by other detectors such as cameras used for license-plate scanning with cameras; Paragraph 63: obtaining user information as they pass electronic displays)
Claims 52 and 59: Herz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 46 and the system of claim 53, wherein the obtained information about the multiple locations of the user includes one or more locations that the user self reports. (Herz -Paragraph 27: the obtained information regarding location can be obtained from a Personal Calander Agent; Paragraph 92: user runs a magnetic shopper loyalty card through a card reader to identify their location to the system; Paragraph 103: a location is determined based on a user planning a visit in the future)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant arguments with regards to the Prong One, Step 2a analysis are not convincing. The applicant appears to have misconstrued the Federal Circuit “directed to” assessment regarding the “character of the claim as a whole” of Step 2a, as well as, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and MPEP 2106. First, the Federal Circuits uses the Alice 2 step test which is a different test than the analysis of claims according to the required USPTO method. Step 1 of the Alice test, used by the Federal Circuit, is equivalent to the combined Step 2a, Prong 1 analysis and Step 2a, Prong 2 analysis required by the USTPO and described in MPEP 2106, as well as, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. As such, the argument consists of a logical fallacy, because the Federal Circuit decisions does not perform a Step 2a, Prong 1 analysis. Next the applicant asserts that claims 46, 53, and 60 do not fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” group, but provides no support for such a general allegation. The subgrouping of “commercial or legal interactions” includes the sub-subgrouping of advertising, marketing, or sales activities of behaviors. As such, the claims clearly fall within the enumerated “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” group and the enumerated subgrouping of “commercial or legal interactions”. Thus, without a specific argument as to why the applicant believes the claims do not fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping, the argument is merely a general allegation. As such, 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 specific technological improvement to computing device and system that provide location-based that contribute to the subject matter eligibility of the claims. The examiner disagrees. Once again, it appears that the applicant is misconstruing MPEP 2106. First, MPEP 2106.04(d) describes how claims should be analyzed under Step 2a, Prong 2. As made clear in MPEP 2106.04(a), once a determination is made that a claim recites and abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1, the “claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.04(d)”. According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), “an evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter”. Thus, additional elements that include an “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” may integrate an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) details how to evaluate whether the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. According to MPEP 2106.04, examiners “evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”. As such, it is clear that “additional elements” are those parts of a claim which are not part of the abstract idea itself. The only “additional elements” recited in the claims are a memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components). After identifying the additional elements in the claim, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) describes how one evaluates improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to any other technology or technical field. 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. Thus, it is clear that for a technological improvement to transform the abstract idea into a practical application, said technological improvement must be rooted in the additional elements of the claim. In the instant case, there is nothing in the claims, or even the applicant’s disclosure, which could be considered a technological improvement to the claimed memory and/or processor. The processor still executes instructions in the same manner it always has. The memory still stores information in the same manner that it always has. The claims require no changes to the generic processor and no changes to the generic memory. Additionally, the argued sections of the applicant’s specification (i.e., paragraphs [0003]-[0004]) make no mention of improving the claimed memory or the claimed processor. Instead, the cited section of the applicant’s disclosure describe and improvement (which the applicant calls a technological improvement) that is obtained by practicing the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer with generic computer components. As explained in 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”. Improvements of this nature, irrespective of whether the applicant considers them to be technological improvement, 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.). Therefore, it is clear that any improvement obtain by practicing the instant claims invention is an improvement that is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself, which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer. Since, improvements of this nature are incapable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, 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 are consistent with the viewpoints expressed by the Appeals Review Panel in the precedential decision: Ex Parte Desjardins. The examiner strongly disagrees. The claims of the instant invention are completely inconsistent with the viewpoints expressed by the Appeals Review Panel in the precedential decision: Ex Parte Desjardins. In the Desjardins decision, the panel determined that the claims recited an additional element that provided an improvement which overcame the 101 rejection. According to the decision, the claims recited a new type of machine learning model that did not operate in the same manner as traditional machine learning models. Whereas, traditional machine learning models when retrained with additional data use this additional data and the original data to generate a completely new machine learning algorithm and discard the initial algorithm which as developed based on the initial training, the claims of the Desjardin decision do not do this. In the newly invented improved machine learning model, the machine learning model maintains the initial algorithm (e.g., initial state) when it is retrained with additional data. By maintaining these states, the machine learning model invented by Desjardins provided an improvement, in that it can revert back to a previous state despite the fact that additional data was used in a subsequent training of the machine learning model. The panel determined that instead of the claim merely applying a traditional machine learning model as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the claims recited a new and improved machine learning model that does not operate in the same manner as traditional machine learning models. In contrast, the only additional elements in the claims of the instant invention are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is merely being applies as a tool. Likewise, any purported improvement obtained by practicing the claims of the instant invention are improvement to the abstract idea which is merely being applied using the general-purpose computer with generic computer components. Thus, neither the claims of the instant invention nor the purported improvement of the instant invention can be said to be consistent with the viewpoints expressed by the Appeals Review Panel in the Ex Parte Desjardins decision. Furthermore, the applicant appears to imply that the Desjardins decision somehow changed the way examination under 35 USC 101 should be performed. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing in the Desjardins decision has made any changes to the way in which one performs a 35 USC 101 analysis as described in MPEP 2106. The Desjardins decision is completely consistent with the required 35 USC 101 analysis described in MPEP 2106. The Desjardin decision merely makes it clear that there is a difference between merely applying a generic machine learning model as a tool and inventing a new machine learning model whose internal working operate in a different manner than that of a traditional machine learning model. Hence, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant alleges that the claims recite “significantly more” under Step 2b, but fail to provide a specific argument as to why they believe this to be the case. As such the applicant’s argument is not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
of the instant invention re are absolutely recite specific technological improvement to computing device and system that provide location-based that contribute to the subject matter eligibility of the claims. The examiner disagrees. Once again, it appears that the applicant is misconstruing MPEP 2106. First, MPEP 2106.04(d) describes how claims should be analyzed under Step 2a, Prong 2. As made clear in MPEP 2106.04(a), once a determination is made that a claim recites and abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1, the “claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.04(d)”. According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), “an evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter”.
The applicant’s argument with regards to the 102 rejections are limited to Herz not teaching to the newly added limitations of the claim. The applicant’s argument is moot as the newly amended claims have been rejected under 35 USC 103 using the prior art of Herz and Vengroff.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights