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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea “identify, by one or more processors, a set of locations that are of interest to a user and that are within a geographic area; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more businesses based on the set of locations that are of interest to the user, each one of the one or more businesses being within a threshold geographic range of the geographic area”. These steps describe a mental process that may be performed in the human mind including observing data points and evaluating those observations.
Furthermore the claim does not recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Claim 1 recites in addition to the abstract idea, transmitting, by the one or more processors and to an electronic device of the user, indications of the one or more businesses based on the set of locations (Step 2B: No). It should be noted the limitations of the current claims are performed by the generically recited computer/processor. These limitations do not integrate the claims into a practical application of the exception. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. With respect to the limitations above identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, as per OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-9, which depend on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1, recite the additional elements of “identifying the set of locations that are of interest to the user and that are within the geographic area comprises: identifying, by the one or more processors, a first set of search results that corresponds to a first search query of the geographic area and that comprise the set of locations; and identifying the one or more businesses based on the set of locations that are of interest to the user comprises: identifying, by the one or more processors, a second set of search results that corresponds to a second search query of the geographic area and that comprise the one or more businesses, wherein the first set of search results and the second set of search results are either different sets of search results or a same set of search results, and wherein the first and second search queries are either different search queries or a same search query. ranking, by the one or more processors, the second set of search results according to relevance to the second search query; boosting, by the one or more processors, rankings of the second set of search results comprising the one or more businesses; and generating, by the one or more processors and to the electronic device of the user, an indication of the rankings, as boosted, of the one or more businesses. identifying, by the one or more processors, user profile data of the user; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the geographic area is unfamiliar to the user based upon the user profile data of the user. assigning, by the one or more processors, a familiarity score to the geographic area based upon (a) a frequency in which the user has visited the geographic area and (b) frequencies in which the user has visited other geographic areas outside of the geographic area; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the geographic area is unfamiliar to the user in response to determining that the familiarity score is below a threshold score. wherein identifying the one or more businesses based on the set of locations that are of interest to the user comprises: identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more recommended types of businesses for the user; and identifying, by the one or more processors, the one or more businesses by matching the one or more businesses to the one or more recommended types of businesses. wherein identifying the one or more recommended types of businesses for the user is based upon a time of day, a time of year, events within the geographic area, or the one or more businesses previously visited by the user. wherein identifying the one or more businesses based on the set of locations that are of interest to the user comprises: for each respective business within the geographic area, assigning, by the one or more processors, a respective popularity score to the respective business according to at least one of: a number of users who visit the respective business, a frequency in which users visit the respective business, a duration in which users remain at the respective business, or reviews of the respective business; and identifying, by the one or more processors, at least one business of the one or more businesses having a respective popularity score above a threshold score. wherein identifying the one or more businesses based on the set of locations that are of interest to the user comprises: for each location in the set of locations, determining whether the location comprises a business based upon at least one of: obtaining an indication of a number of locations for the business associated with the location, obtaining indications of each location for the business associated with the location and identifying an area which encompasses each location for the business associated with the location, obtaining an indication of a number of employees of the business associated with the location, obtaining reviews of the business associated with the location and analyzing the reviews, or obtaining an indication of an amount of revenue for the business associated with the location.”. These limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of a mental process.
Therefore, claims 2-9 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 10-20 recite similar limitations and are also directed to the abstract idea of identifying and analyzing information. These claims are rejected using the same rationale used in claims 1-9 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Boyer (US Pub # 20200342026).
With regards to claim 1, Boyer discloses:
A computer-implemented method for providing recommendations, the method comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors, a set of locations that are of interest to a user and that are within a geographic area ([0023] point of interest may include a business [0026] batch point-of-interest data records with similar geographic locations);
identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more businesses based on the set of locations that are of interest to the user, each one of the one or more businesses being within a threshold geographic range of the geographic area ([0026] similar geographic locations (e.g., locations within a threshold distance of a location, locations on the same city block, etc.), point-of-interest data records that indicate the same or similar postal code, point-of-interest data records that indicate similar point-of-interest names (e.g., fuzzy matched business names such as “Bob's Auto Shop” and “Bob's Auto Body”), or any batch of point-of-interest data records that share at least a threshold similarity in a feature); and
transmitting, by the one or more processors and to an electronic device of the user, indications of the one or more businesses based on the set of locations ([0037] provide a merged point-of-interest data records to a user interface map of a geographic area).
Claims 10 and 16 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 2, Boyer further discloses:
identifying the set of locations that are of interest to the user and that are within the geographic area comprises:
identifying, by the one or more processors, a first set of search results that corresponds to a first search query of the geographic area and that comprise the set of locations ([0069] system 100 may query a data store (e.g., storage facility 110, a previously generated graph data structure, etc.) for points-of-interest that have postal codes that match the postal code of the point-of-interest data record); and
identifying the one or more businesses based on the set of locations that are of interest to the user comprises:
identifying, by the one or more processors, a second set of search results that corresponds to a second search query of the geographic area and that comprise the one or more businesses, wherein the first set of search results and the second set of search results are either different sets of search results or a same set of search results, and wherein the first and second search queries are either different search queries or a same search query ([0069] System 100 may receive results of the query and filter out any point-of-interest data records that have comprehensive geographic location data (e.g., comprehensive addresses) indicative that the corresponding point-of-interest data records have already been batched by geographic location and matched within that batch. System 100 may batch the point-of-interest data record with the remaining point-of-interest data records returned by the postal-code-based query).
Claims 11 and 17 correspond to claim 2 and are rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3-7, 12-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer (US Pub # 20200342026) in view of Cutter (U.S Pat # 9194716).
With regards to claim 3, Boyer does not disclose however Cutter discloses:
ranking, by the one or more processors, the second set of search results according to relevance to the second search query ([Col. 6 lines 11-20] multiple points of interest retrieved from the points of interest database 204, using either a fixed distance from the current location, or a radius calculated based on the density of points of interest in proximity to the current location are ranked);
boosting, by the one or more processors, rankings of the second set of search results comprising the one or more businesses ([Col. 6 lines 52-67] a “relevant time window” can be associated with a particular type or category of point of interest. For example, if the point of interest is a restaurant, then if the current time falls within blocks of time surrounding typical meal times, the ranking can be boosted); and
generating, by the one or more processors and to the electronic device of the user, an indication of the rankings, as boosted, of the one or more businesses ([Col. 9 lines 42-47] rankings and their updates are presented to the user).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Boyer by Cutter to identify which search results are more relevant to a user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to select point of interest or categories of information to present to a user based on a user’s current location (Cutter [Col. 1 lines 30-35]).
Claims 12 and 18 correspond to claim 3 and are rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 4, Boyer does not disclose however Cutter discloses:
identifying, by the one or more processors, user profile data of the user; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the geographic area is unfamiliar to the user based upon the user profile data of the user ([Col. 10 lines 56-67] determine if a user is familiar or unfamiliar with a location).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Boyer by Cutter to identify which search results are more relevant to a user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to select point of interest or categories of information to present to a user based on a user’s current location ([Col. 1 lines 30-35]).
Claims 13 and 19 correspond to claim 4 and are rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 5, Boyer does not disclose however Cutter discloses:
assigning, by the one or more processors, a familiarity score to the geographic area based upon (a) a frequency in which the user has visited the geographic area and (b) frequencies in which the user has visited other geographic areas outside of the geographic area ([Col. 10 lines 11-34] number of locations a user has visited and number of locations with a user’s current distance); and
determining, by the one or more processors, that the geographic area is unfamiliar to the user in response to determining that the familiarity score is below a threshold score ([Col. 10 lines 56-67] below a threshold indicates a user is unfamiliar with the current location).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Boyer by Cutter to identify which search results are more relevant to a user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to select point of interest or categories of information to present to a user based on a user’s current location ([Col. 1 lines 30-35]).
Claims 14 and 20 correspond to claim 20 and are rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 6, Boyer does not disclose however Cutter discloses:
identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more recommended types of businesses for the user; and
identifying, by the one or more processors, the one or more businesses by matching the one or more businesses to the one or more recommended types of businesses ([Col. 12 lines 8-22] providing a user with a subset of categories of points of interest may be desirable. The user can then select one of the categories, and in response be provided with a subset of points of interest within the category).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Boyer by Cutter to identify which search results are more relevant to a user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to select point of interest or categories of information to present to a user based on a user’s current location ([Col. 1 lines 30-35]).
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 7, Boyer does not disclose however Cutter discloses:
wherein identifying the one or more recommended types of businesses for the user is based upon a time of day, a time of year, events within the geographic area, or the one or more businesses previously visited by the user ([Col. 6 lines 52-67] time of day).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Boyer by Cutter to identify which search results are more relevant to a user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to select point of interest or categories of information to present to a user based on a user’s current location ([Col. 1 lines 30-35]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer (US Pub # 20200342026) in view of Twig (U.S Pub # 20190065564).
With regards to claim 8, Boyer does not disclose however Twig discloses:
for each respective business within the geographic area, assigning, by the one or more processors, a respective popularity score to the respective business according to at least one of: a number of users who visit the respective business, a frequency in which users visit the respective business, a duration in which users remain at the respective business, or reviews of the respective business; and
identifying, by the one or more processors, at least one business of the one or more businesses having a respective popularity score above a threshold score ([0049] search for hotels with a review score abut a threshold score).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Boyer by Twig to determine a popularity score of points of interests.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to analyze search results to rank and sort search results for a travel reservation and generate a graphical user interface having control elements and regions to facilitate corporate travel savings (Twig [0007]).
With regards to claim 9, Boyer does not disclose however Twig discloses:
for each location in the set of locations, determining whether the location comprises a business based upon at least one of: obtaining an indication of a number of locations for the business associated with the location, obtaining indications of each location for the business associated with the location and identifying an area which encompasses each location for the business associated with the location, obtaining an indication of a number of employees of the business associated with the location, obtaining reviews of the business associated with the location and analyzing the reviews, or obtaining an indication of an amount of revenue for the business associated with the location ([0056] weigh search results based on review score).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Boyer by Twig to determine a popularity score of points of interests.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to analyze search results to rank and sort search results for a travel reservation and generate a graphical user interface having control elements and regions to facilitate corporate travel savings (Twig [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/TONY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights