DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This is a Final office action in response to communication received on January 16, 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-19 are pending and examined herein.
Priority
2. Foreign priority being claimed by the Applicant to Japanese patent application No. 2023-196789, filed on November 20, 2023, is granted at this time. However note see MPEP section 35 U.S.C. 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority, (b) “(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.”
Thus, the Examiner may require an English translation if an intervening reference is relied upon to have the Applicant perfect their priority claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-19 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. Next using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidances (hereinafter 2019 PEG) the rejection as follows has been applied.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, and 11-13 are an apparatus; claims 9 and 14-16 are a method; and claims 10 and 17-19 are a non-transitory CRM. Thus, each claim 1-10, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-19 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of estimating an activity area of a target user by comparing it with a related user to decide whether target user’s first location information is useful in estimating the activity target area of the target user which is mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity (but for its implementation in network based environment - which is considered further under prong two and step 2B analysis as set forth below).
The phrase "Mental processes" applies to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. A-C. Similarly here based on observation and evaluation of target and related users’ information, judgement/estimation and opinion is formed regarding the activity area of the target user.
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to 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) – related user information is utilized in estimating the activity area of a target user and also see as-published spec. para. [0003] which explains how such social networking services (SNSs) is utilized for marketing to different audience. Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-19 at least are apparatus comprising a memory to store instructions and a processor to execute said instructions, and SNS (claim 1); one or more computers, and SNS (claim 9), and a non-transitory CRM storing program for causing one or more computers to execute, and SNS (claim 10). Remaining claims, either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1, 3-4, 7, and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device merely sending/receiving data over a network, note receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Obtained/transmitted data is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes obtained/ transmitted user data to estimate activity area by comparing target user and related user data. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide an activity area estimate of a target user, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of estimating an activity area of a target user by comparing it with a related user to decide whether target user’s first location information is useful in estimating the activity target area of the target user (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-19, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of estimating an activity area of a target user by comparing it with a related user to decide whether target user’s first location information is useful in estimating the activity target area of the target user - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here users’ data is received via transmission over a network]; and
(ii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here memory storing instructions and non-transitory CRM storing a program instructions which are executed by a processor are utilized].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Ikeda et al. (Pub. No.: US2022/0239620) referred to hereinafter as Ikeda.
As per claims 1, 9, and 10,
as per claim 1, an activity area estimation apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to (see [0101]-[0102]):
as per claim 9, an activity area estimation method comprising, by one or more computers (see [0101]-[0102]):
as per claim 10, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing program for causing one or more computers to execute (see [0101]-[0102]):
as per claim limitations of claims 1, 9, and 10:
(a) generate, based on first posted information of a target user on SNS, first location information (see [0029]; [0041] note “posted information acquiring unit 101 acquires all the posted information from the account information of the target account. The posted information includes, for example, images and text that the account (the user) has posted on the timeline or the like. The posted information acquiring unit 101 extracts the posting location and the posting date and time from an image or text included in the acquired posted information. The posting location indicates the location where the target user has posted the posted information. The posting date and time indicates the date and time when the target user has posted that posted information. The posting date and time is registered at the time of posting with the posting date and time associated with the posted image or text. The posting location serves as the position information that can be extracted from the posted information and may be a GEO tag, such as global positioning system (GPS) information, appended to the posted image or the position identified based on a landmark or the like captured in the posted image. The posting location may also be extracted from a location mentioned in a posted message (text), instead of being extracted from an image. The location mentioned in a posted message is extracted, for example, through natural language processing performed on the posted message. The posting location is an example of position information for estimating a location of activity of the target user (a location bearing relation to the target user) based on the account information of the target user. The posting location is not limited to a location of posting and may instead be a base of activity, such as the area of residence, included in profile information”; [0051]);
(b) determine a related user of the target user being a user related to the target user on the SNS (see [0044] note “The friend information acquiring unit 103 acquires friend information of a friend account from the social media system 200. The friend information acquiring unit 103 also serves as a friend account identifying unit that identifies a friend account of a target user. A friend account is an account connected to the target account as a friend or the like on social media.”);
(c) generate, by using profile information of the related user on the SNS, the related user information including second location information (see [0044]; [0045] note “The friend information is the position information concerning the friend account and is, for example, the area of residence (including the place of residence) extracted from the account information. The friend information acquiring unit 103 extracts area of residence information from the profile information included in the account information. Information to be extracted is not limited to the area of residence, and any other base of activity, such as the hometown, the workplace, or the school, may be extracted. The friend information is an example of position information for estimating a location of activity of the friend (a location bearing relation to the friend) based on the account information of the friend. The friend information is not limited to a base of activity, such as the area of residence, and may instead be a posting location of posted information, for example”);
(d) decide, when a predetermined criterion is satisfied, the first location information is useful for estimating an activity area of the target user in a real space, the predetermined criterion being related to a position relation in the real space between locations indicated by the first location information and the second location information each (see [0058]-[0061]; [0063]; [0066]; [0077]; [0075]-[0079]; [0083]; [0087]-[0088]; [0113]);
(e) generate a posting distribution indicating a distribution of locations in the real space indicated by the first location information decided as being useful (see Figs. 3, 4, 9-10 and their associated disclosure; );
(f) generate a related user distribution indicating a distribution of locations in the real space indicated by the second location information (see Figs. 3, 6, 9-10 and their associated disclosure; ); and
(g) estimate, by using overlapping between the generated posting distribution and the related user distribution, the activity area of the target user (see Fig. 7 and its associated disclosure; [0047]; [0066]; [0077]; [0075]-[0079]; [0083]; [0087]-[0088]; [0113]).
As per claim 2, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 1. Ikeda discloses wherein the first location information is generated by using at least one of text information, position information, and an image included in the first posted information (see [0029]; [0041]; [0051]).
As per claim 4, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 3. Ikeda discloses wherein the profile information includes residence location information of the related user, and the second location information includes the residence location information acquired from the profile information (see [0045]-[0046]).
As per claim 5, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 3. Ikeda discloses wherein the related user includes at least one of a directly-related user directly associated with the target user and an indirectly-related user associated with the directly-related user (see [0044]; [0056]-[0058]; [0064]; [0091]-[0093]).
As per claim 7, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 3. Ikeda discloses wherein the related user is included in a plurality of related users, the related user information is included in a plurality of pieces of related user information of the plurality of related users each, the second location information is included in a plurality of pieces of second location information of the plurality of related users each, and whether the first location information is useful is decided by using a plurality of pieces of second location information included in the plurality of pieces of related user information each (see [0039]-[0040]; [0052]-[0053]; [0076]; [0098]).
As per claim 8, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 3. Ikeda discloses wherein the activity area of the target user is estimated by further using the second location information (see [0061]; [0098]).
As per claim 11, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 1. Ikeda discloses wherein the second location information includes the residence location information of the related user (see [0058]-[0063]).
As per claim 12, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 1. Ikeda discloses wherein the processor configured to execute further instructions to: decide, when the first location information is not relevant to a predetermined specific location, the first location information is useful (see [0034]).
As per claim 13, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 1. Ikeda discloses wherein the processor configured to execute further instructions to: decide, when a distance in a real space between locations included in a plurality of pieces of the first location information is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, the first location information including the locations is useful (see [0075]-[0080]).
As per claim 14, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 9. Ikeda discloses wherein the second location information includes the residence location information of the related user (see [0058]-[0063]).
As per claim 15, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 9. Ikeda discloses further comprising: deciding, when the first location information is not relevant to a predetermined specific location, the first location information is useful (see [0034]).
As per claim 16, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 9. Ikeda discloses further comprising: deciding, when a distance in a real space between locations included in a plurality of pieces of the first location information is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, the first location information including the locations is useful (see [0075]-[0080]).
As per claim 17, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 10. Ikeda discloses wherein the second location information includes the residence location information of the related user (see [0058]-[0063]).
As per claim 18, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 10. Ikeda discloses storing program for causing one or more computers further to execute: deciding, when the first location information is not relevant to a predetermined specific location, the first location information is useful (see [0034]).
As per claim 19, Ikeda discloses the claim limitations of claim 10. Ikeda discloses storing program for causing one or more computers further to execute: deciding, when a distance in a real space between locations included in a plurality of pieces of the first location information is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, the first location information including the locations is useful (see [0075]-[0080]).
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
5. Regarding Objection to Specification, it is resolved in view of proper claim amendment to the specification filed by the Applicant.
Regarding Priority, it is granted at this time.
Regarding 101, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s remarks in their entirety, however respectfully finds them unpersuasive. The Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and a proper analysis is applied using 2019 PEG.
As per prong one, the Applicant has argued in view of additional elements such as apparatus with memory and a processor, however as noted in the rejection, the determination is based on abstract recitation. Thus, the Examiner maintains “An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-19 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of estimating an activity area of a target user by comparing it with a related user to decide whether target user’s first location information is useful in estimating the activity target area of the target user which is mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity (but for its implementation in network based environment - which is considered further under prong two and step 2B analysis as set forth below).
The phrase "Mental processes" applies to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. A-C. Similarly here based on observation and evaluation of target and related users’ information, judgement/estimation and opinion is formed regarding the activity area of the target user.
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to 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) – related user information is utilized in estimating the activity area of a target user and also see as-published spec. para. [0003] which explains how such social networking services (SNSs) is utilized for marketing to different audience. Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.”
As per prong two, the Applicant argues in view of a computer-implemented solution, however as explained per prong two, note “claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-19 at least are apparatus comprising a memory to store instructions and a processor to execute said instructions, and SNS (claim 1); one or more computers, and SNS (claim 9), and a non-transitory CRM storing program for causing one or more computers to execute, and SNS (claim 10). Remaining claims, either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1, 3-4, 7, and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device merely sending/receiving data over a network, note receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Obtained/transmitted data is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes obtained/ transmitted user data to estimate activity area by comparing target user and related user data. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide an activity area estimate of a target user, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).”
Thus, merely collecting, comparing/evaluating, and estimating activity area of the user based on collection and evaluation of data, indeed fails to, when “viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of estimating an activity area of a target user by comparing it with a related user to decide whether target user’s first location information is useful in estimating the activity target area of the target user (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.”
As per Step 2B, the Applicant is reminded that the evaluation is limited to additional elements however the Applicant argues in view of amended claim recitation and inventive concept without particularly identifying any additional elements. Thus, the Examiner respectfully finds the Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and maintains step 2B analysis as the claims lack significantly more.
Regarding 102, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s remarks in their entirety, however respectfully finds them unpersuasive. The Applicant particularly argues “posting distribution” and “predetermine criterion,” which amounts to general allegation as the Applicant has not provided any discussion of Ikeda, as such, the Examiner notes that Ikeda has not been fully and properly considered by the Applicant. Indeed granularity of location information of target user and target user’s social connection is considered by Ikeda as at least one predetermined criterion to ultimately estimate the target user location. Thus, the Examiner respectfully finds the Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and maintains the prior art based rejection.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution, at least note the following:
*Being noted initially
- WO2023/095277A1 see Abstract “present invention provides an information processing device (1000) comprising: an activity area estimation unit (1001) that estimates, on the basis of public information which is published on the Internet and which is linked to a social media account, the activity area of a user of the account; and a relationship estimation unit (1002) that estimates, on the basis of public information, the relationship between the user of the account and the activity area.”
- NPL: Cho, Eunjoon et al. “Friendship and mobility: user movement in location-based social networks.” Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (2011).
*Previously noted
- US20140156746 see [0165] At step 930, the geographic location of the user may be cross-referenced with the geographic locations of the user's friends. For example, social event recommendation engine 620 may read the geographic location field from user profile data 710 of FIG. 7 for the user and each of the user's friends. Social event recommendation engine 620 may perform distance calculations on the read geographic locations. Distances may be calculated using any suitable algorithm, such as Euclidean distance. For example, social event recommendation engine 620 may determine which of the user's friends are at a geographic location that is less than a threshold distance from the user's geographic location.
- US20120047565 A1 see [0125] "In this embodiment, the social connection manager 62 of the MAP server 12 then analyzes the new tentative social connection between the users 20-1 and 20-N and one or more previously created tentative social connections between the users 20-1 and 20-N to determine whether to recommend a two-way social connection between the users 20-1 and 20-N (step 1712). In one embodiment, a two-way social connection is recommended if more than a predefined threshold number of tentative social connections between the users 20-1 and 20-N have been created. In another embodiment, a two-way social connection is recommended if more than a predefined threshold number of tentative social connections between the users 20-1 and 20-N have been created during a desired time window. The desired time window may be, for example, a time window relative to the current time (e.g., past week, past month, past 90 days, or the like). In yet another embodiment, a two-way social connection is recommended if more than a predefined threshold number of tentative social connections between the users 20-1 and 20-N have been created at the same geographic location or within the same geographic area (e.g., within a predefined maximum distance from one another). In yet another embodiment, a two-way social connection is recommended if more than a predefined threshold number of tentative social connections between the users 20-1 and 20-N have been created for the same geographic location or the same geographic area during a desired time window."; [0135].
- US20200100050A1 see "exchanging GPS or other position data between wireless devices for purposes of group activities, child location monitoring, work group coordination, dispatching of employees etc. Cell phones and other wireless devices with GPS receivers have loaded therein a Buddy Watch application and a TalkControl application. The Buddy Watch application communicates with the GPS receiver and other wireless devices operated by buddies registered in the users phone as part of buddy groups or individually. GPS position data and historical GPS position data can be exchanged between cell phones of buddies and instant buddies such as tow truck drivers via a buddy watch server. Emergency monitoring services can be set up with notifications to programmable individuals in case an individual does not respond. Positions and tracks can be displayed. TalkControl simplifies and automates the process of joining talk groups for walkie talkie services such as that provided by Nextel"
- US20180270616A1 see “determining types of user geographical locations. A target geographical location corresponding to a plurality of uploading times can be obtained. At least one time-location type mapping relationship table can be obtained. Based on the obtained at least one time-location type mapping relationship table, for each of location types in the at least one time-relation type mapping relationship table, a sum of probability values of the respective location type can be calculated to obtain a degree that the target geographical location belongs to each of the location types. Each of the probability values corresponds to one of the uploading times of the target geographical location. Which of the location types corresponds to the target geographical location can be determined according to the degrees that the target geographical location belongs to each of the location types.”
- US20120284333 see “in a) receiving data from first devices associated with users of a social networking service, where the data represent respective geographic locations of the users; b) storing location information representative of respective geographic locations of the users; c) storing information representing an event and a geographic location of the event; and d) transmitting information to at least one second device, the transmitted information including a result of retrieving the stored location information of users whose geographic locations match the geographic location of the event, together with the geographic location of the at least one event, and a quantity of the users whose geographic locations match the geographic location of the at least one event.”
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 DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (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.
/DIPEN M PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights