DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 2/27/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 10, and 15 have been amended.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1-9 are a method, claims 10-14 are a system, and claims 15-20 are a device. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1, 10 and 15) recite:
A method comprising: (claim 1)
receiving, at a server from a user's device comprising a processor over a network, travel data comprising a location being traveled to by a user;
retrieving, from a database over the network, data comprising policies and information associated with the received location;
filtering through the data comprising policies and information associated with the received location and then selecting, by the server, only those policies and information associated with the received location should be sent to the user's device; and
and sending, from the server to the user's device over the network, the selected policies and information associated with the received location.
Claim 10 recites parallel claim language and the above analysis also applies to claim 10.
A user device comprising: a processor configured for: (claim 15)
sending, to a server over a network, a location of a user;
determining that the user has entered a predetermined zone associated with a predefined location, wherein upon entering in such predetermined zone, the server filters, from a database over the network, the data to determine which
receiving, from the server over the network, the policies and information associated with the received location which have changed within the predetermined time period.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for determining the appropriate policies and information to send to a user based on the set criteria. The policies as read in light of the specification are policies, rules, regulations or the like that are communicated to a user based on their location and preference data (see [0026]). The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
at a server from a user's device comprising a processor over a network,
from a database over the network
by the server
the user's device;
from the server to the user's device over the network
Claim 10 recites parallel claim language and the above analysis also applies to claim 10.
A user device comprising: a processor configured for: (claim 15)
to a server over a network
from a database over the network
from the server over the network
The additional elements of above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 10, and 15 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 10, and 15 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 10, and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 10 and 15 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites further comprising: determining when the user has entered a geographic area proximate to the location; and in response to the user entering the geographic area proximate to the location, sending the selected policies to the user's device. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 and 12 recites further comprising: determining what policies and information are associated with various locations by accessing publicly-available databases or websites; saving, to the database, the policies and information that are associated with various locations in order to build a database of policies and information. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites wherein a device at the received location creates, stores and updates, at the database, the policies and information associated with the received location so that the server can retrieve and use in the future the policies and information associated with the received location. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites further comprising: requesting user settings from the user device relating to reminders under certain triggering conditions; and determining what alerts to send to the user in accordance with the user settings; determining that one of the triggering conditions has been met; and preventing sending the alerts to the user's device in response to the server determining that the user settings indicate to not provide reminders and that one of the triggering conditions has been met. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites further comprising: determining deviations between the user's home area and the area where the received location is located; and in response to determining that the deviations has exceeded a threshold, determining that the deviations should be provided to the user. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 7, 14, and 15 recites further comprising: determining others that are traveling with the user; and determining information about the location to provide to the user based on information relating to others traveling with the user. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites wherein the policies and information associated with the received location comprises one or more of the following: bringing your own bags, whether pumping gas is self-pump only or attendant-pump only, the location does not accept cash, whether the location is self-checkout only, the location the user is going to does not take certain credit cards, what the parking policies are, what items are allowed and not allowed in the location, if the location is kid-friendly, information about weapons, a tipping policy at the location, what the bag policy is, and how to access shopping carts. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 and 13 recites wherein the server is configured to alert the user about in response to certain triggers comprising one of the following: (1) when the user searches for directions to a location and types the address into the user's device, (2) when the user is doing a shopping list, (3) when the user is looking at an eWallet application to check the user's electronic tickets or clipped eCoupons (4) when the user enters the geofenced area beside the location. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites wherein the server is further configured to: determine when the policies and information associated with the received location should be sent to user; sending the policies and information associated with the received location when the user arrives at an area proximate to the received location in response to determining that the policies and information associated with the received location should be sent when the user is at the location; and sending the policies and information associated with the received location immediately in response to determining that the policies and information associated with the received location should be sent as soon as the server receives the policies and information. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 16 recites wherein the processor is further configured for: sending information associated with the user so the server can determine which portions of the policies and information to select; and receiving the selected portions of the policies and information. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 18 recites wherein the processor is further configured for: sending user settings relating to reminders under certain triggering conditions such that the user's device requests to not receiving reminders from the server when one of the triggering conditions has been met, wherein the server prevents sending reminders to the user's device in response to the server determining that the user settings indicate to not provide reminders and that one of the triggering conditions has been met. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 19 recites wherein the processor is further configured for: an antenna configured to periodically send location information of the user's device to the server, wherein the server compares the locations of the user with predetermined zones associated with locations to determine if the user's device has entered one of the predetermined zones. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. While the limitation recites an antenna the additional element is recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 20 recites wherein the processor is further configured for: sending an address which the user intends to travel to; and receiving the policies and information prior to the user arriving at the location. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For these reasons claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benkreira (US 20220391954).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Benkreira discloses:
A method comprising: (claim 1)
A system comprising: a server comprising a processor configured for: (Figure 1) (claim 10)
receiving, at a server ([0046]the location data 116 may be received by the processor(s) 109) from a user's device (user device 115) comprising a processor over a network (network 606), travel data comprising a location being traveled to by a user ([0004] receiving, by at least one processor, location data from a computing device associated with a user, where the physical location data represents a physical location of the computing device;)
retrieving, from a database over the network [0028] In some embodiments, the storage device 101 of the data restriction recognition system 100 may include, e.g., a suitable memory or storage solution(s) for maintaining electronic data entries 118 representing the electronic activity history(ies) associated with entity. For example, the storage device 101 may include database technology, data comprising policies and information associated with the received location;[0046] In some embodiments, the location data 116 may be received by the processor(s) 109. In some embodiments, a data profile matching engine 130 of the data restriction recognition system 100 may be loaded in response to the location data 116 to identify one or more entity data profiles associated with the location identified by the location data 116. In some embodiments, various entities may have physical locations at which a user may utilize an initiator device such as the initiator device 117 to initiate an electronic activity (e.g., an ATM location, a store location, a parking meter or parking payment machine, etc.). Thus, a user's proximity to the physical locations may be used to alert the user of any data entry restrictions before the user attempts to initiate the electronic activity. For example, where the physical location is a store of an entity including a merchant of physical goods, the location data 116 may be matched to the physical location of store and the user may be notified of store policies such as, e.g., the ability to return purchased goods for cash and/or store credit.
filtering through the data comprising policies and information associated with the received location and then selecting, by the server, only those policies and information associated with the received location should be sent to the user's device; and [0049] In some embodiments, the data profile matching engine 130 may filter the entity data profiles based on pre-generated data profile classification types either before or after matching the location data 116 to one or more entity data profiles. In some embodiments, each entity data profile may be tagged, e.g., using metadata, headers, data record flags, etc., by the data profile classification engine 120 according to the data profile classification type of each entity data profile. As a result, when the data profile matching engine 130 may filter the entity data profiles according to the tags and match the location data 116 to the entity data profiles having the reversal capable data profile. Therefore, the data profile matching engine 130 may use the location data 116 from the user device 115 to identify any entities within the proximity of the user device 115 that may have data entry reversal capability.
sending, from the server to the user's device over the network, (network 606 and the data restriction recognition system 100 may generate and transmit a notification 108 to the user device 115 based on the identified entities.) the selected policies and information associated with the received location. [0050] In some embodiments, the data restriction recognition system 100 may generate and transmit a notification 108 to the user device 115 based on the identified entities. In some embodiments, the notification 108 may include a list and/or map identifying each identified entity in the user's proximity that may have data entry reversal capability. For example, where a user is located in an area near physical stores, the data restriction recognition system 100 may identity and notify the user via the user device 115 of physical stores that may be able to accept returns of purchases.
Regarding claim 15, Benkreira discloses:
A user device comprising: a processor configured for: (processor 109)
sending, to a server over a network, a location of a user; ([0004] receiving, by at least one processor, location data from a computing device associated with a user, where the physical location data represents a physical location of the computing device;) determining that the user has entered a predetermined zone associated with a predefined location, wherein upon entering in such predetermined zone, the server filters, from a database over the network, the data to determine which are associated with the location [0046] In some embodiments, the location data 116 may be received by the processor(s) 109. In some embodiments, a data profile matching engine 130 of the data restriction recognition system 100 may be loaded in response to the location data 116 to identify one or more entity data profiles associated with the location identified by the location data 116. In some embodiments, various entities may have physical locations at which a user may utilize an initiator device such as the initiator device 117 to initiate an electronic activity (e.g., an ATM location, a store location, a parking meter or parking payment machine, etc.). Thus, a user's proximity to the physical locations may be used to alert the user of any data entry restrictions before the user attempts to initiate the electronic activity. For example, where the physical location is a store of an entity including a merchant of physical goods, the location data 116 may be matched to the physical location of store and the user may be notified of store policies such as, e.g., the ability to return purchased goods for cash and/or store credit.
and which has changed within a predetermined time period; [0042] In some embodiments, the processor(s) 109 may implement the data profile classification engine 120 to utilize the data profile classification machine learning model periodically and/or on demand. For example, the data profile classification machine learning model may automatically update classifications for each entity data profile, e.g., once per day (e.g., overnight), once per week, once every two weeks, once every month, once every six months, or any other suitable period. And see[ 0062-0063]
receiving, from the server over the network, the policies and information associated with the received location which have changed within the predetermined time period. [0065] In some embodiments, where the entities in the proximity of the user device 115 based on the location data 116 include one or more entities having an, electronic activity reversal restriction the data restriction recognition system 100 may update the notification 108 or generate a new notification 108 to indicate the electronic activity reversal restriction for each entity. As a result, the user may be alerted to reversal-capable entities that restrict reversals.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Rathod discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses:
further comprising: determining when the user has entered a geographic area proximate to the location; [0161] In an embodiment generating a map based on monitored and tracked current location of user device or location information, wherein the generated map comprises plotting on the generated map a selectable and actionable graphical representation or graphical indicator or icon of each identified or determined criteria specific place(s) including current place, nearby place or places that are within predetermined threshold distance of the location of the user, search query including provided or selected location information specific nearby places, selected category specific places and any combination thereof.
and in response to the user entering the geographic area proximate to the location, sending the selected policies to the user's device. [0542] In an embodiment in the event of entering at location of particular specific place (e.g. Chanel 5307) or defined geofence associated with location of particular specific place (e.g. Chanel 5307) and dwelling at said place for pre-set duration then identifying current place or nearest place and send notification to user with pre-set or default ringtone notifying user about current place and in the event of clicking or tapping on notification, displaying said identified current place or nearest place associated details in graphical user interface (GUI) 5391 displayed on prominent place of map and enabling user to enter amount or use or select default or pre-set or pushed billed amount 5395 by merchant from merchant application and see [00419, 00457,0492-0493]
Regarding claim 4, Benkreira discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses:
determining when the user has entered a geographic area proximate to the location; and (see in Figure 2 the user device 115 in a proximity 201 and location data 116) in response to the user entering the geographic area proximate to the location, sending the selected policies to the user's device. [0050] In some embodiments, the data restriction recognition system 100 may generate and transmit a notification 108 to the user device 115 based on the identified entities. In some embodiments, the notification 108 may include a list and/or map identifying each identified entity in the user's proximity that may have data entry reversal capability. For example, where a user is located in an area near physical stores, the data restriction recognition system 100 may identity and notify the user via the user device 115 of physical stores that may be able to accept returns of purchases.
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Benkreira discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses:
wherein the server is configured to alert the user about in response to certain triggers comprising one of the following: (1) when the user searches for directions to a location and types the address into the user's device, (2) when the user is doing a shopping list, (3) when the user is looking at an eWallet application to check the user's electronic tickets or clipped eCoupons (4) when the user enters the geofenced area beside the location. [0046] Thus, a user's proximity to the physical locations may be used to alert the user of any data entry restrictions before the user attempts to initiate the electronic activity. For example, where the physical location is a store of an entity including a merchant of physical goods, the location data 116 may be matched to the physical location of store and the user may be notified of store policies such as, e.g., the ability to return purchased goods for cash and/or store credit.
Regarding claim 16, Benkreira discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured for: sending information associated with the user (proximity information of the user) so the server can determine which portions of the policies and information to select; and receiving the selected portions of the policies and information. [0049] In some embodiments, the data profile matching engine 130 may filter the entity data profiles based on pre-generated data profile classification types either before or after matching the location data 116 to one or more entity data profiles. In some embodiments, each entity data profile may be tagged, e.g., using metadata, headers, data record flags, etc., by the data profile classification engine 120 according to the data profile classification type of each entity data profile. As a result, when the data profile matching engine 130 may filter the entity data profiles according to the tags and match the location data 116 to the entity data profiles having the reversal capable data profile. Therefore, the data profile matching engine 130 may use the location data 116 from the user device 115 to identify any entities within the proximity of the user device 115 that may have data entry reversal capability.
Regarding claim 20, Benkreira discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured for: sending an address which the user intends to travel to [0045] In some embodiments, the location data 116 may include, e.g., regional, state, city, street address, building name and/or number and/or floor and/or suite identifier, latitude-longitude, location marker identifier, or other type of data identifying a location of the user device 115.; and receiving the policies and information prior to the user arriving at the location. [0047] Accordingly, in some embodiments, the data profile matching engine 130 may match the location data 116 to entity data profiles in the storage device 101 that have an attribute associated with the location data 116. In some embodiments, the matching may include comparing the location data to the location attribute of data entries in each entity data profile to identify entity data profiles having data entries within a predetermined proximity to the location data 116. In some embodiments, the predetermined proximity may include, e.g., less that twenty feet, less than fifty feet, less than 100 feet, less than a quarter of a mile, less than a half mile, less than a mile, or any other suitable predetermined proximity to forewarn a user of the policies of the entities.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 7, 12, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkreira in view of Hampson (US 20150234570)
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Rathod discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses:
saving, to the database, [0028] In some embodiments, the storage device 101 of the data restriction recognition system 100 may include, e.g., a suitable memory or storage solution(s) for maintaining electronic data entries 118 representing the electronic activity history(ies) associated with entity. For example, the storage device 101 may include database technology, the policies and information that are associated with various locations in order to build a database of policies and information. [0025] For example, in some embodiments, the initiator device(s) 117 may include a physical terminal for performing electronic transactions, such as, e.g., a point-of-sale device, automated teller machine (ATM) or other device. As a result of a user executing electronic activities via the initiator device(s) 117, data entries may be produced for entry into the user's account. For example, the electronic activity execution device may produce a data entry 118.
While Benkreira discloses the collection of information about merchants, the reference does not expressly disclose:
determining what policies and information are associated with various locations by accessing publicly-available databases or websites;
However Hampson discloses:
determining what policies and information are associated with various locations by accessing publicly-available databases or websites; [0042] For example, the source data may include data indicative of a business's operating hours (captured, for example, by crawling a website associated with the business), and the particular time of the event may fall outside of the business's operating hours.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collection of information about merchants in Benkreira to include determining what policies and information are associated with various locations by accessing publicly-available databases or websites, as taught in Hampson, in order to provide up to date information allowing the user to create and event with accurate information (paragraph 002-003).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 17, Benkreira discloses the limitations set forth above.
While Benkreira discloses the collection of information about merchants, the reference does not expressly disclose:
further comprising: determining others that are traveling with the user; and determining information about the location to provide to the user based on information relating to others traveling with the user.
However Hampson teaches:
further comprising: determining others that are traveling with the user; and determining information about the location to provide to the user based on information relating to others traveling with the user. [0042] Other conflict determinations are also possible. For example, a user may attempt to invite a given number of people to an event, while the source data may indicate that the number of people invited to the event exceeds a location's maximum occupancy or maximum reservation size.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collection of information about merchants in Benkreira to include further comprising: determining others that are traveling with the user; and determining information about the location to provide to the user based on information relating to others traveling with the user, as taught in Hampson, in order to provide up to date information allowing the user to create and event with accurate information (paragraph 002-003).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkreira in view of Hunzinger (US20020086680).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Benkreira discloses the limitations set forth above.
While Benkreira discloses the collection of information about merchants and sending location based information to a user device, the reference does not expressly disclose:
requesting user settings from the user device relating to reminders under certain triggering conditions;
and determining what alerts to send to the user in accordance with the user settings; determining that one of the triggering conditions has been met;
and preventing sending the alerts to the user's device in response to the server determining that the user settings indicate to not provide reminders and that one of the triggering conditions has been met.
However Hunzinger teaches:
requesting user settings from the user device relating to reminders under certain triggering conditions; (user selects to set a reminder 205 in Figure 2)
and determining what alerts to send to the user in accordance with the user settings; determining that one of the triggering conditions has been met; (monitor current location information versus stored information 225 and direction matches 235 in Figure 2)
and preventing sending the alerts to the user's device in response to the server determining that the user settings indicate to not provide reminders and that one of the triggering conditions has been met. [0028] The mobile terminal may use techniques to prevent inappropriate triggering of the reminder action upon detecting the short transitions across the border between Area A and B around location 302.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collection and transmission of information about merchants based on location in Benkreira to include requesting user settings from the user device relating to reminders under certain triggering conditions; and determining what alerts to send to the user in accordance with the user settings; determining that one of the triggering conditions has been met; and preventing sending the alerts to the user's device in response to the server determining that the user settings indicate to not provide reminders and that one of the triggering conditions has been met, as taught in Hunzinger, in order to overcome the necessity for using wireless communication connections to supply position location, such as network assisted, network based or standalone position location technologies, as well as providing a practical location-based service to terminal users. (paragraph 005)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkreira in view of Eliashevsky (US 20240107270).
Regarding claims 6, Benkreira discloses the limitations set forth above.
While Benkreira discloses the collection of information about merchants and sending location based information to a user device, the reference does not expressly disclose:
further comprising: determining deviations between the user's home area and the area where the received location is located;
and in response to determining that the deviations has exceeded a threshold, determining that the deviations should be provided to the user.
However Eliashevsky teaches:
further comprising:
determining deviations between the user's home area and the area where the received location is located; and in response to determining that the deviations has exceeded a threshold, determining that the deviations should be provided to the user. [0047] Output engine 82 can also include methods in code for communicating updates and/or notifications to user interface 50. For example, output engine 82 can include workflow methods for determining when the identified rule from location-based rules module 78 is associated with a notification for one or more groups of users 52. Notifications can include, e.g., an indication that one of tracking devices 60 is in a different geofence zone, an indication that one of tracking devices 60 has been in a different geofence zone for a threshold amount of time, or other notifications. In some examples, notifications can include an indication of elevation in severity state as one of tracking devices 60 moves from one geofence zone to another. In some examples, the notifications are generated by output engine 82 and delivered to user interface 50 in the form of alerts. In other examples, the notifications can be associated with an email that users 52 can receive in an email client or with a message received via a messaging service such as SMS, etc. Output engine 82 can also include methods for communicating other updates to user interface 50, such as updates to a graphical representation of locations of tracking devices 60 (e.g., adding a graphical indicator to ones of tracking devices 60 that are outside of a home zone).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collection and transmission of information about merchants based on location in Benkreira to include determining deviations between the user's home area and the area where the received location is located; and in response to determining that the deviations has exceeded a threshold, determining that the deviations should be provided to the user, as taught in Eliashevsky, in order to improve efficiency or ease-of-use and security of asset tracking system (paragraph 0074).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkreira in view of Todasco (US 20160342990).
Regarding claim 8, Benkreira discloses the limitations set forth above.
While Benkreira discloses the collection of information about merchants and sending location based information to a user device, the reference does not expressly disclose:
wherein the policies and information associated with the received location comprises one or more of the following: bringing your own bags, whether pumping gas is self-pump only or attendant-pump only, the location does not accept cash, whether the location is self-checkout only, the location the user is going to does not take certain credit cards, what the parking policies are, what items are allowed and not allowed in the location, if the location is kid-friendly, information about weapons, a tipping policy at the location, what the bag policy is, and how to access shopping carts.
However Todasco teaches:
wherein the policies and information associated with the received location comprises one or more of the following: bringing your own bags, whether pumping gas is self-pump only or attendant-pump only, the location does not accept cash, whether the location is self-checkout only, the location the user is going to does not take certain credit cards (accepted payment methods at Walmart in Figure 8A and see [0031]), what the parking policies are, what items are allowed and not allowed in the location, if the location is kid-friendly, information about weapons, a tipping policy at the location, what the bag policy is, and how to access shopping carts.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collection and transmission of information about merchants based on location in Benkreira to include wherein the policies and information associated with the received location comprises one or more of the following: bringing your own bags, whether pumping gas is self-pump only or attendant-pump only, the location does not accept cash, whether the location is self-checkout only, the location the user is going to does not take certain credit cards, what the parking policies are, what items are allowed and not allowed in the location, if the location is kid-friendly, information about weapons, a tipping policy at the location, what the bag policy is, and how to access shopping carts, as taught in Todasco, in order to allow a user to immediately know the types of payment methods accepted by a merchant when the consumer enters the merchant's physical location. (paragraph 005).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkreira in view of Kaiman (US 20170332200).
Regarding claim 11, Benkreira discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses:
wherein the server is further configured to: determine when the policies and information associated with the received location should be sent to user; sending the policies and information associated with the received location when the user arrives at an area proximate to the received location in response to determining that the policies and information associated with the received location should be sent when the user is at the location; [0046] In some embodiments, the location data 116 may be received by the processor(s) 109. In some embodiments, a data profile matching engine 130 of the data restriction recognition system 100 may be loaded in response to the location data 116 to identify one or more entity data profiles associated with the location identified by the location data 116. In some embodiments, various entities may have physical locations at which a user may utilize an initiator device such as the initiator device 117 to initiate an electronic activity (e.g., an ATM location, a store location, a parking meter or parking payment machine, etc.). Thus, a user's proximity to the physical locations may be used to alert the user of any data entry restrictions before the user attempts to initiate the electronic activity. For example, where the physical location is a store of an entity including a merchant of physical goods, the location data 116 may be matched to the physical location of store and the user may be notified of store policies such as, e.g., the ability to return purchased goods for cash and/or store credit. and see [0050]
While Benkreira discloses the collection of information about merchants and sending location based information to a user device, the reference does not expressly disclose:
and sending the policies and information associated with the received location immediately in response to determining that the policies and information associated with the received location should be sent as soon as the server receives the policies and information.
However Kaiman teaches:
and sending the policies and information associated with the received location immediately in response to determining that the policies and information associated with the received location should be sent as soon as the server receives the policies and information. [0012] transmitting, by the server, a signal to the client device including information associated with time-sensitive messages for those geocoded location based service records which are associated with positions that are within the predetermined distance of the location of the client device, wherein the time-sensitive messages are valid only for a predetermined time period, after which they are no longer transmitted toward the client device.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collection and transmission of information about merchants based on location in Rathod to include and sending the policies and information associated with the received location immediately in response to determining that the policies and information associated with the received location should be sent as soon as the server receives the policies and information, as taught in Benkreira, in order to for enable provision of reliable location based services to users in radiocommunication systems and, more particularly, to location based service information which is provided with time-sensitive constraints that enhance reliability for users (paragraph 002).
Relevant Art Not Cited
DEPASQUALE (US20120101901) discloses providing targeted messages to users based on their travel information
Response to Arguments
With respect to the remarks filed on 2/27/2026 directed to 35 USC 102 and 103, the remarks have been considered, however are determined to be moot. The rejection to the claims has been updated in light of the claim amendments and now relies on the teachings of Benkreira. Rathod is no longer applied in the rejections.
With respect to the remarks filed on 2/27/2026 directed to 35 USC 101, the remarks have been considered, however are not found to be persuasive.
First, with regards to the argument “Against Step 2A, Prong 1: The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea”. The examiner maintains the claims do recite an abstract idea. The rejection has not characterized the abstract idea as “mental process”, that is to say the process can be done by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Rather, the abstract idea has been characterized as a method of organizing human activity. That is to say that the claims recite limitations directed to business relations, sales, marketing activities. As stated by applicant in the remarks and the specification, the policies and information are about places such as that of bringing own bags, tipping policies, the form of payment accepted by the places, gas pumping regulations. That is policies and rules about locations of interest. The implementation of the information being processed and transmitted using the network architecture does not recite more than the judicial exception. At most, the information provided to the end user is improved based on the filtering applied to the data before the information is transmitted. This however, is an improvement to the abstract idea and not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Second, with regards to the argument “Against Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a Practical Application”. The element such as a geofenced area and predictive techniques are merely data points or data processing itself. They are not additional elements such as computer architecture. The same is true of the user specific filtering. This is a set of rules that are applied to the data to improve the output; that is improve the abstract idea. The implementation of these steps by a computer to make the process timely and improve mobile communication efficiency is merely the tangential result of performing a task by a computer. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), the courts found that accelerating a process (i.e. retrieval of real estate listings) when the increase speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) was not sufficient to show improvement to the computer functionality.
Further per MPEP 2106.05 (f), the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Third, with regards to the argument “Against Step 2B: The Ordered Combination Provides Significantly More”. When reviewed in combination, the claims do not recite an unconventional combination. The server is processing the inputs of deviation between user’s home and their destination to determine if an alert is necessary and a simple programmed rule set. If the trigger is prompted, then a transmission is sent. Again, the implementation of the trigger by a device and to a device does not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to claim 5, in this limitation, the reduction of the device resources are simply a consequence of the input. That is, if less information is input, less information is required to be processed. The computer itself is not being improved, the data set (part of the abstract idea) is at most being improved.
With respect to claim 8, the examiner is not asserting the rejection that the web crawling or determining of policy types is a manual task. The examiner has not said the claims are a mental process. The rejection states that the “rules” are further part of the abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity. That is, they are another part of the dataset and the web crawler is the additional element merely collecting this additional data.
With respect to claim 9, the triggers are simply a programmed rule in which any from the list could be used to trigger the need-to-know information. A specific list of triggers or rules does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Though elements of eWallet and GPS are technical elements, the level of detail in which they are recited in the claims and the specification [0037, 0058, 0078] is recited at a high level of generality. There is not sufficient technical detail to show that they elements recite more than being used as a rule in a set of rules.
For at least these reasons the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
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 VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 4/23/2026
Prosecution Insights