DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10 October 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of patent application no 12,062,069 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-19 are a method. Thus, independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-19 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: claim 1 recites displaying at least one advertisement for a time sensitive discounted good and/or a time sensitive discounted service (a “deal”) and accepting payment from the occupants of the FHV. This limitations fall within “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Simply put, these limitation merely describe accepting payment in response to presenting the deal to the occupant of FHV, which is clearly a business arrangement in its purest form. Claims 2-19 merely provide additional abstract concept and narrow the abstract idea of claim 1. Further, claims 1-19 are recited at such a high level that the claimed steps amount to no more than a mental processes, such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because a human can select content that meets a location criteria, acknowledge an agreement to promote content and authorize compensation.
Step 2A-Prong 2: the additional elements includes some form computer components for obtaining location of the FHV from a global position system (GPS) (i.e., data gathering), obtaining adveritment (i.e., data gathering) via electronic commucation through a network for displaying on the deal presenter system and deal presenter system for accepting payment and accepting the deal the deal manager system through the network. Theses computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., GPS, a deal presenter system, a deal manager system performing a generic computer function of processing data of displaying deal ).
This generic computer components limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of
the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the claimed
computer systems amount to no more than “apply” a displaying of deal on the deal presenter system. Further, the courts have consistently recognized that merely presenting the results of
abstract processes of obtaining and displaying information, without more (such as identifying a
particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.
See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Examiner asserts that “displaying advertismetn (deal) comminating the location of the FHV to a deal presenter system and electronically communicating the deal through a network to deal presenter system” is not particular tool, thus it offers no more than presenting anything that includes the advertismetn that resulted from the agreement between the deal presenter system and deal manager.
In sum, the combination of steps that obtains, displays, and accepts payment via electronically communicating through network, are at best is doing no more than generally linking the claims to network environment that obtain and display communications– see MPEP 2106.05(h). See also, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other
machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims
describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be
directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823
F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of
performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements
were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and
operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the
server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores
the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at
1747-48.
Similarly, these claims obtain information, display advertismetn (deal) and accept payment by invoking computer systems as tools being used in an ordinary capacity to execute the abstract idea. Thus, these additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a computer system without sufficient recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea. The claims merely offer conventional computer systems to organizing Human Activity.
The closes reference to the applicants claimed invention as follows:
Kolker (US Pub., 2007/0213047 A1) focused on Placing orders comprises an input device mounted on a mobile vehicle. The mobile vehicle is owned or operated by a first entity and the vehicle is for transporting a passenger between different locations, the passenger being different to the owner or operator(abstract), and target customers such as passengers based on the geographic location of the mobile vehicle carrying the passenger (paragraph [0002] and [0050]).
Wu et al (US Pub, No., 2013/0046595 A1) focused on a system and method of providing online location-based time-sensitive deals are proposed. An online retailer accepts an instant deal submitted by a merchant. The instant deal is a discounted service provided by the merchant at a geographic location. The instant deal is approved only if the merchant is qualified and if the deal is qualified based on a set of preconfigured rules. The online retailer advertises a deal coupon for the discounted service during a limited time for a limited quantity to consumers located near the geographic location(abstract) .
Roth (US Pub., No., 2008/0018730 A1) focused on an interactive for-hire vehicle communication system and method of communicating selectable passenger-related information to a for-hire vehicle are disclosed. The system comprises an audio device located in a for-hire vehicle. A workstation is in communication with the audio devices and the workstation is also in communication with one or more passenger interfaces located in the for-hire vehicle. Either the workstation and/or servers are configured to receive passenger audio information received by the audio device. The passenger audio information is converted to text suitable for passenger-related interactive information exchange to one or more passenger interfaces of the for-hire vehicle (abstract).
None of the above references either alone or in a combination teaches of suggests the deal presenter system displaying the deal when the location is within a predetermined inclusive restriction area and/or to not displaying the deal when the location is within a predetermined exclusive restriction area; based on obtained location of obtained a location of the FHV from a global positioning system (“GPS”) and obtained at least one advertisement for the time sensitive and the deal presenter system displaying the deal to the occupant of the FHV on a display that is disposed within the FHV; the deal presenter system accepting input from the occupant of the FHV; the deal presenter system accepting payment from the occupant of the FHV; and the deal presenter system electronically communicating an acceptance of the deal to the deal manager system through the network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments of 35 U.S.C 101 rejections with respect to claim 1-19 filed on 10 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The core of the invention of the claims is a method of advertising and selling goods or server based on a person’s location and time sensitivity, which is a fundamental economic practice or method or organizing human activity (marketing/sales) that has long existed, even if implanted with modern technology, thus the clams are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim lacks an "inventive concept, the additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The use of generic computer components like a GPS, display, network, and general-purpose computers (deal presenter system, deal manager system) to implement the abstract idea is considered routine and conventional. The mere computer implementation does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Further the use of GPS for location-based services is common, merely using location data to trigger an advertisement within a "predetermined inclusive restriction area" or "exclusive restriction area" is an application of the abstract marketing method and does not confer patent eligibility and the "time sensitive discounted good" element further emphasizes the business/marketing nature of the claim, which falls into the category of unpatentable abstract ideas.
The claimed elements , as described, essentially automates a well-known business practice using conventional computer technology, which is insufficient to qualify as a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Furthermore, the claim does not involve an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, nor does it transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The steps simply implement a basic commercial transaction using well-understood and routine information technology. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections with respect to claims 1-19 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SABA DAGNEW whose telephone number is (571)270-3271. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:45.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571) 270 -3948. 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.
/SABA DAGNEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621