CTNF 18/972,570 CTNF 89673 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Applicant’s claim to priority to provision application No. 63/608,284 (filed 12/10/2023) has been acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The 5/12/2025 IDS document has been acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claims 1, 11, and 16 each recite receiving “a request determining whether a location… is an authorized location,” which renders the respective claims indefinite because it is not clear which element is performing the “request determining” aspect, and whether that aspect is part of the claim scope. For instance, if the request is merely received, and the request is what performs the determination, then the determination is outside of the claim scope. Additionally, it is not clear how the request itself is performing a determination. Thus, the language of these claims is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the respective claims so as to understand how to avoid infringement. The dependent claims do not rectify this issue and are therefore likewise rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are drawn to software per se, which is not a category of patent eligible subject matter. Independent claim 11 is drawn to a system comprising “a storage medium configured to store computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the storage medium and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions.” The storage medium may be a signal per se and the processor may be a software processor since the relevant portions of the instant specification do not discourage such an interpretation (i.e., [0051]-[0053] reciting “processor(s) 616 may be implemented as appropriate in… computer-executable instructions” and “computer-readable communication media may include computer-readable instructions, program modules, or other data transmitted within a data signal, such as a carrier wave, or other transmission;” these portions of the specification merely provide hardware devices as an example rather than limiting the structure). The dependent claims do not rectify this issue and are rejected with their parent independent claim. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Note that the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation (refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Example independent claim 11 recites the following abstract idea limitations: A system, comprising: receive a set of historical time-stamped coordinates for one or more user devices associated with an account, the set of historical time-stamped coordinates corresponding to a historical time period (extra-solution data gathering for a category of data); determine a set of authorized locations based at least in part on the historical time-stamped coordinates and corresponding to clusters of historical time-stamped coordinates (observation, evaluation, and judgement as part of a mental process—e.g., an analyst reviews the received data and identifies certain locations of interest); receive a request determining whether a current location of a first user device is an authorized location (requesting access as part of certain methods of organizing human activity—e.g., the analyst is called by an entity wanting to validate if a user is allowed to access a particular location); determine whether the current location of the first user device corresponds to one of the set of authorized locations (evaluation as part of a mental process—e.g., the analyst compares the particular location to those of known records and data); in accordance with determining that the current location of the first user device corresponds to one of the set of authorized locations (evaluation and judgement as part of a mental process—e.g., the analyst compares the particular location to those of known records and data), transmit a confirmation indicating that the current location of the first user device corresponds to one of the set of authorized locations (providing authorization as part of certain methods of organizing human activity—e.g., the analyst tells the caller whether the access is allowed); and in accordance with determining that the current location of the first user device does not correspond to one of the set of authorized locations (evaluation and judgement as part of a mental process—e.g., the analyst compares the particular location to those of known records and data), transmit a response that the current location of the first user device does not correspond to one of the set of authorized locations (providing authorization as part of certain methods of organizing human activity—e.g., the analyst tells the caller whether the access is allowed). Example independent claim 11 recites the following limitations which may comprise additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: “a storage medium configured to store computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the storage medium and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to at least” perform the steps of the abstract idea. With respect to step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is drawn to receiving and analyzing data for a judgement at a high level of generality, and because adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not considered to be sufficient-see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is drawn to steps which may be performed by a human analyst as described above, and does not otherwise specify any particular machine for automating the steps beyond that of a base level computer having a processor and memory. As such, the invention is addressing a problem that transcends computing (receiving and comparing data) rather than improving the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. With respect to step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not considered to be sufficient-see MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, a processor and memory are the base level elements of any computer for performing the abstract idea limitations. Merely performing the judicial exception using a base level computer is not considered to be sufficient. Independent claims 1 and 16 are substantially similar and are therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding dependent claim 2, it is considered to merely further specify the abstract idea by describing additional data gathering and data analysis steps at a high level of generality (observation and evaluation as part of a mental process—e.g., the analyst reviewing timestamps to calculate an amount of time). As such, it is rejected under the same analysis as the respective independent claim. Regarding dependent claim 3, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 2 above. Regarding dependent claim 4, it is considered to merely further specify the abstract idea by describing additional data gathering and data analysis steps at a high level of generality (observation and evaluation as part of a mental process—e.g., the analyst reviewing location data for arrival and departure times, as well as a number of visits). As such, it is rejected under the same analysis as the respective independent claim. Regarding dependent claim 5, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 4 above. Regarding dependent claim 6, it is considered to merely further specify the abstract idea by describing additional analysis steps at a high level of generality (evaluation as part of a mental process—e.g., the analyst selecting areas of interest). As such, it is rejected under the same analysis as the respective independent claim. Regarding dependent claim 7, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 6 above (i.e., the analyst undertakes additional considerations during evaluation). Regarding claims 8-9, they are considered to merely further specify the abstract idea by describing the received data at a high level of generality (i.e., the data further comprising particular time periods for consideration by the analyst). Regarding dependent claim 10, it is considered to be drawn to extra-solution activity (i.e., the received data having been time-stamped immutably, which happens outside of the claim scope because the claim is drawn to evaluating the data rather than forming it). Further, “immutable” is not otherwise specified and immutably timestamping information may be interpreted as certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., stamping postmarks). Dependent claims 12-15 and 17-20 are substantially similar to claims 2-5 above, and are rejected under the same analysis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a )(1) as being an ticipated by La u (US 2013/0102283 A1) . Re garding claim 1, Lau discloses: A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a service (e.g., the system in [0098] and FIG. 6-7 of Lau, including a data analysis engine, profile generation engine, and authentication engine) , a set of historical time-stamped coordinates for one or more user devices associated with an account (e.g., online account as in [0019] of Lau) , the set of historical time-stamped (e.g., [0050]-[0051] of Lau concerning timestamped location data) coordinates corresponding to a historical time period; Refer to at least [0022]-[0023], [0029], and [0066]-[0070] of Lau with respect to the system gathering user device location data and creating a profile. The location data includes temporal information (e.g., user stays over a period of time). determining, by the service, a set of authorized locations based at least in part on the historical time-stamped coordinates and corresponding to clusters (e.g., [0023] of Lau concerning clustering user location data) of historical time-stamped coordinates; Refer to at least [0024], [0029], [0049], and [0070]-[0072] of Lau with respect to automatically determining a baseline pattern of user behavior for the profile (e.g., fingerprints). receiving, by the service, a request determining whether a current location (e.g., [0026] of Lau concerning current status and location) of a first user device is an authorized location; Refer to at least [0101] of Lau with respect to receiving a request for user authentication based on the profile (i.e., location data), where the request may concern access to accounts such as in [0019] of Lau. determining, by the service, whether the current location of the first user device corresponds to one of the set of authorized locations; Refer to at least [0018], [0068], [0075], and [00101] of Lau with respect to a comparison between the current status and the profile as part of the authentication. For instance, whether the user is at an expected location based on their profile. in accordance with determining that the current location of the first user device corresponds to one of the set of authorized locations, transmitting, by the service, a confirmation indicating that the current location of the first user device corresponds to one of the set of authorized locations; and Refer to at least FIG. 7 and [0101] of Lau with respect to the authentication decision returned based on the comparison; providing or not providing access as in, e.g., [0019] of Lau. in accordance with determining that the current location of the first user device does not correspond to one of the set of authorized locations, transmitting, by the service, a response that the current location of the first user device does not correspond to one of the set of authorized locations. Refer to at least FIG. 7 and [0101] of Lau with respect to the authentication decision returned based on the comparison; providing or not providing access as in, e.g., [0019] of Lau. Regarding claim 2, Lau discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of authorized locations includes: determining, by the service, a set of historical locations based at least in part on the historical time-stamped coordinates, the set of historical locations corresponding to clusters of time-stamped coordinates; determining, by the service, an amount of time at each of the set of historical locations based at least in part on the time-stamped historical coordinates; and determining, by the service, the set of authorized locations based at least in part on the amount of time at each of the set of historical locations. Refer to at least [0029], [0040], [0049], [0067], and [0070] of Lau with respect to location data including the duration of user stays at respective locations as part of the profile and fingerprints. Regarding claim 3, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2 above (i.e., the citations—e.g., [0067] of Lau concerning selectable time periods such as an hour, a day, a week, and so forth). Regarding claim 4, Lau discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of authorized locations includes: determining, by the service, a set of historical locations based at least in part on the historical time-stamped coordinates, the set of historical locations corresponding to clusters of time-stamped coordinates; determining, by the service, individual visits to the set of historical locations based at least in part on the time-stamped historical coordinates, each visit of the individual visits including an arrival and a departure; and determining, by the service, the set authorized locations based at least in part on a minimum number of visits. Refer to at least [0029], [0090], and [0097] of Lau with respect to the frequency of user visits to locations as part of the profile. Refer to at least [0025], [0029], and [0092] of Lau with respect to tracking arrival and user stay information. Regarding claim 5, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 2-4 above (i.e., arrival and user stay information as part of the profile). Regarding claim 6, Lau discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein determining the set of historical locations includes determining a building or geographic area to designate as a location-of-interest based at least in part on the time-stamped historical coordinates. Refer to at least [0021]-[0026] of Lau with respect to determining points of interest for the profile. Regarding claim 7, Lau discloses: The computer-implemented method claim 1, wherein determining the set of authorized locations is further based at least in part on a maximum number (the claim does not bound or specify the maximum, nor how it is calculated or used in the determination; nor does it specify how “based on” is modifying the determination) of authorized locations. Refer to at least the abstract and [0079] of Lau with respect to generating the profile and associating a plurality of locations with the user / user device. There is inherently “a maximum number” of locations that can be stored in as part of the system (e.g., [0097] of Lau concerning the database). Additionally, there is some finite number of possible locations on Earth. Regarding claims 8-9, they are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 1-3 above (e.g., [0026] and [0066]-[0067] of Lau concerning selectable time periods and time windows as part of the profile—for instance, an hour rather than a day). Regarding independent claim 11, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected (i.e., the citations). Regarding claims 12-15, they are substantially similar to claims 2-5 above, and are therefore likewise rejected. Regarding independent claim 16, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected (i.e., the citations). Regarding claims 17-20, they are substantially similar to claims 2-5 above, and are therefore likewise rejected . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau as applied to claim s 1-9 and 11-20 above, and further in view of Tedesco (US 2022/0255928 A1) . Regarding claim 10, Lau does not specify: wherein the time-stamps of the set of historical time-stamped coordinates are immutably time-stamped by the one or more user devices. However, Lau in view of Tedesco discloses: wherein the time-stamps of the set of historical time-stamped coordinates are immutably time-stamped by the one or more user devices. Refer to at least the abstract and [0020] of Tedesco with respect to implementing timestamps for location data using ZKPs and blockchain. The teachings of both Lau and Tedesco concern validating temporal location data, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Lau to further implement immutable blockchain techniques for storing the location data to the profile for at least the purpose of preventing malicious modification (e.g., trying to obtain access from a disallowed location by changing the reported location information) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VADIM SAVENKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5751. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM. 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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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. /Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432 /V.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/972,570 Page 2 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/972,570 Page 3 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/972,570 Page 4 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/972,570 Page 5 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/972,570 Page 6 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/972,570 Page 7 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/972,570 Page 8 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/972,570 Page 9 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/972,570 Page 10 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/972,570 Page 11 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/972,570 Page 12 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/972,570 Page 13 Art Unit: 2432
Prosecution Insights