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 . Claims 2-21 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 2-21 are directed toward a method, computer-readable medium, and device. Therefore, it can be seen that they fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, the claims clearly do not meet the three-prong test for patentability.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and/or
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 16 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 16 recites:
A user device, comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions, and
one or more processors configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to at least:
determining a current location of a user device using a location system;
accessing a state model that includes one or more states, wherein each state of the one or more states is represented by a time and a significant location associated with a user of the user device;
generating, using the state model, a prediction that a future location of the user device at a future time is a first significant location represented by a first state in the state model;
generating, based on the prediction, an alert for presentation at the user device, the alert comprising user assistance information corresponding to the first significant location; and
providing, the alert, for presentation at the user device.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining a current location of a user device” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally analyzing the data and determining a current location of a user device. Similarly, the limitations of “accessing a state model”, “generating a prediction that a future location of the user device”, “generating an alert”, and “providing the alert” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a future location of the user device and user assistance information corresponding to the first significant location. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea , adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A user device, comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions, and
one or more processors configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to at least:
determining a current location of a user device using a location system;
accessing a state model that includes one or more states, wherein each state of the one or more states is represented by a time and a significant location associated with a user of the user device;
generating, using the state model, a prediction that a future location of the user device at a future time is a first significant location represented by a first state in the state model;
generating, based on the prediction, an alert for presentation at the user device, the alert comprising user assistance information corresponding to the first significant location; and
providing, the alert, for presentation at the user device.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “using a location system” and “using a state model”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract ideal (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “a current location of a user device using a location system” indicate pre-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. Lastly, the “one or more processors” recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Notably, there is no actual use or presentation of the motion plans, such as controlling the vehicle.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 16 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using one or more processors to perform the determining ... amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “a current location of a user device using a location system” and “wherein each state of the one or more states is represented by a time and a significant location associated with a user of the user device”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities as previously discussed.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a current location of a user device using a location system” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the user device is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., further characterizing the receipt of data and the mental processes). Therefore, dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 2, 9, and 16.
Therefore, claims 2-21 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke Huynh whose telephone number is 571-270-5746. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 8-5, Tues 8-12, Thurs & Fri 8-2.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/LUKE HUYNH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
04/13/2026
Prosecution Insights