DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
01. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
02. Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Drawings
03. The drawings were received on 03/25/2025. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they are blurry and/or illegible. The writing/words in figures 5 – 14 are blurry and/or of poor quality, and cannot be reasonable read and understood. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
04. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
05. Claims 1 – 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of US Patent 11,080,312. Although the conflicted claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application recites a broader version of the claims found in the prior patent. The table below compares the claims, with the limitations in italics being those that are omitted from the prior patent, and the bolded limitations being those that are written in different words, but generally have the same meaning.
Application 18/154,628
Patent 11,080,312
1. A method for management of localization data, the method comprising:
importing a primary set of data associated with a location;
associating a secondary set of data with the location wherein the secondary set of data includes a plurality of third party data sets;
generating a comparison metric by identifying differences between the secondary set of data and the primary set of data; and
responsive to the comparison metric reaching a predefined threshold, creating a modified primary set of data based on the secondary set of data.
1. A method for management of localization data to improve performance of an information processing system configured to execute geospatial operations, the method comprising: executing a program by a computer system that transforms the computer system into a machine that performs:
importing a primary set of locational data associated with locations of a plurality of entities:
for each of the plurality of entities, mapping the primary set of locational data to a plurality of fields, wherein the plurality of fields includes at least one geospatial data field for each of the plurality of entities:
importing a secondary set of locational data associated with the plurality of entities into electronic memory, wherein (i) the secondary set of locational data includes a plurality of third party locational data sets associated with the locations of the plurality of entities and (ii) the secondary set of locational data
includes geospatial data that more accurately represents the geospatial location of one or more of the plurality of entities than the primary set of
locational data:
generating a geospatial metric by comparing the values in the at least one geospatial data field for each of the plurality of entities in the primary set of location data with corresponding geospatial data values in the secondary set of locational data for the plurality of entities, wherein the geospatial metric is automatically generated in the computer system based on a degree of differences between the geospatial data for the plurality of entities described by the secondary set of locational data and the geospatial data of the plurality of entities as described by the primary set of locational data;
responsive to the geospatial metric reaching a predefined threshold,
automatically generating a modified primary set of locational data having
corrected geospatial data for one or more of the plurality of entities, wherein the modified primary set of electronic location data is generated based on differences between the geospatial data of the entity as described by the secondary set of locational data and the geospatial data of the entity as described by the primary set of locational data stored in electronic memory; and
exporting the modified primary set of locational data to an electronic processing system configured to execute geospatial operations using the modified primary set of locational data, wherein accuracy of the geospatial operations executed by the electronic processing system are enhanced through use of the modified primary set of locational data.
2. the primary set of data includes a primary set of geospatial coordinates.
4. the secondary set of locational data includes a plurality of secondary sets of geospatial coordinates.
3. matching the primary set of data with a predefined format.
7. normalizing the modified primary locational set of data to a predefined format set of primary data.
4. the secondary set of data includes a plurality of secondary sets of geospatial coordinates.
4. the secondary set of locational data includes a plurality of secondary sets of geospatial coordinates.
5. identifying differences between each of the plurality of secondary sets of geospatial coordinates and the primary set of geospatial coordinates.
1. …based on a degree of differences between the geospatial data for the plurality of entities described by the secondary set of locational data and the geospatial data of the plurality of entities as described by the primary set of locational data…
6. the modified primary set of data includes a modified set of geospatial coordinates based on difference between the primary set of geospatial coordinates and the plurality of secondary sets of geospatial coordinates.
1. …wherein the modified primary set of electronic location data is generated based on differences between the geospatial data of the entity as described by the secondary set of locational data and the geospatial data of the entity as described by the primary set of locational data…
7. the modified set of geospatial coordinates is based on a weighted combination of difference between the primary set of geospatial coordinates and each of the plurality of secondary sets of geospatial coordinates.
6. the modified primary set of geospatial coordinates is based on a weighted combination of differences between the geospatial data for an entity in the primary set of locational data and each of the geospatial data for the entity in the third party locational data sets.
8. normalizing the modified primary set of data to a predefined format set of primary data.
7. normalizing the modified primary locational set of data to a predefined format set of primary data.
9. exporting the predefined format set of primary data.
8. exporting the predefined format set of primary locational data to the electronic processing system, wherein the electronic processing system implements a marketing platform facilitating electronic location of an entity by a consumer.
10. collecting the secondary set of data from the plurality of third parties.
9. collecting the secondary set of locational data from the plurality of third parties, wherein the secondary set of locational data includes at least one set of locational data downloaded from a public search engine platform.
11. the comparison metric is based on a weighted average of differences between the secondary set of data and the primary set of data.
6. the modified primary set of geospatial coordinates is based on a weighted combination of differences between the geospatial data for an entity in the primary set of locational data and each of the geospatial data for the entity in the third party locational data sets.
Claims 12 – 21 recite the same embodiments that are found in claims 1 – 11. The only difference is that either a system or method is claimed, and some of the wording has been rearranged, but the same claim limitations are nonetheless being claimed. As a result, claims 12 – 21 are rejected under the same rational as that provided with respect to claims 1 – 11 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
06. 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.
07. Claims 1 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to creating and modifying data sets, which amounts to an abstract idea, as explained in detail below. The claims do 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.
Step 1: The claim recites a method which recites a series of acts for the management of localization data. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong one: The claim recites the limitation of “generating a comparison metric by identifying differences between the secondary set of data and the primary set of data”. This claimed limitation is a mathematical calculation in that different points of data are compared. Comparing one piece of data with another piece of data is a simple mathematical calculation or comparison. Therefore, this claim limitation describes a purely mathematically calculated “statistic”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim includes the additional limitations of: “importing a primary set of data”, “associating a secondary set of data with the location”, and “creating a modified primary set of data”.
The claim recites the additional element of “importing a primary set of data”, which represents mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. This limitation in the claims is thus insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim recites the additional element of “associating a secondary set of data with the location”, which represents mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. This claim limitation merely associates data with a location, which is akin to gathering data, which in this case is the location data. This limitation in the claims is thus insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim recites the additional element of “creating a modified primary set of data”, which represents mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Modifying data is simply a way to obtain a different set of data, and is therefore simply the gathering of data of which a calculation (comparison metric) has been performed. This limitation in the claims is thus insignificant extra-solution activity.
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than perform the process on generic computing components. This does not provide an improvement to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim. Thus, this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology.
Step 2B: As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A prong two, the various steps in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, but are instead limited to appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claim 2 recites the additional claimed limitation of the primary set of data including the primary set of geospatial coordinates. This does not add anything significantly more to the claims, as this merely defines what the data is. Specifying the type of data does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 3 recites that the data has a predefined format. Associating data with a particular format, of which the format type isn’t specified, does not add anything more to the above identified abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites that the secondary sets of data include secondary sets of geospatial coordinates. Claim 1 already defined the secondary sets of data to include data associated with a location, so this just merely defines the location data to a slightly more specific subset. Having data be of a specific type does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claims 5 – 7 recite that differences are identified between the primary and secondary sets of data and that the differences are weighted. However, claim 1 already recites that the comparison metric identifies differences between the primary and secondary sets of data. This claim merely explains in slightly further detail how the differences between the sets of data are identified. This does not make the abstract idea any less abstract.
Claims 8 and 9 recites that the data is normalized to a particular format and that the format is exported. Normalizing data to a format and/or exporting the data does not add anything to the abstract idea to make it any less abstract. Normalizing data to a format is well-known and simplistic process, as is exporting the data, which would be understood to be insignificant post-solution activity. Therefore, the claims remain abstract.
Claim 10 recites that the secondary set of data is from third parties. Claim 1 already recites that the secondary set of data includes a plurality of third party data sets. Therefore, this claim merely explains that the data is collected, which is something rather inherent, as obtained data needs to be gathered somehow. This does not recite the claim in any level of detail beyond the data gathering process identified above.
Claim 11 recites that the comparison metric is based on a weighted average of differences between the secondary set of data and the primary set of data. This further defines how the comparison is metric is determined, but that does not further limit the abstract idea identified above. This step merely explains the data gathering step in further detail, but does not make the claim any less abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
08. 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 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.
09. 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)(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.
10. Claims 1 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Busch (US PGPub 2013/0137463).
Consider claim 1, Busch discloses a method for management of localization data (abstract), the method comprising:
importing a primary set of data associated with a location (paragraphs [0157], [0268], [0333], data about a location is obtained);
associating a secondary set of data with the location wherein the secondary set of data includes a plurality of third party data sets (paragraphs [0270], [0277], [0282], additional data sets are obtained that are associated with the location, such that the additional data sets can be obtained from various different sources or locations);
generating a comparison metric by identifying differences between the secondary set of data and the primary set of data (paragraphs [0270], [0333], [0336], [0347], the different sets of location data are compared in order to determine differences in the different sets of location data);
responsive to the comparison metric reaching a predefined threshold, creating a modified primary set of data based on the secondary set of data (paragraphs [0347], [0358], [0384], the location data can be analyzed and then updated to reflect a difference between the various different location data sets that are obtained).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Busch discloses a method comprising:
the primary set of data includes a primary set of geospatial coordinates (paragraph [0285], the set of data includes a set of coordinates for the locations).
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Busch discloses a method comprising:
matching the primary set of data with a predefined format (paragraph [0366], the data is formatted to a particular format based on the user needs or properties).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Busch discloses a method comprising:
the secondary set of data includes a plurality of secondary sets of geospatial coordinates (paragraph [0285], the set of data includes a set of coordinates for the locations).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 4 above, Busch discloses a method comprising:
identifying differences between each of the plurality of secondary sets of geospatial coordinates and the primary set of geospatial coordinates (paragraph [0346], differences between the different sets of geographic data are identified, such as differences in time or location).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 5 above, Busch discloses a method comprising:
the modified primary set of data includes a modified set of geospatial coordinates based on difference between the primary set of geospatial coordinates and the plurality of secondary sets of geospatial coordinates (paragraphs [0346], [0358], differences between sets of data are identified based on data being determined for different locations, time periods, etc.).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 6 above, Busch discloses a method comprising:
the modified set of geospatial coordinates is based on a weighted combination of difference between the primary set of geospatial coordinates and each of the plurality of secondary sets of geospatial coordinates (paragraph [0350], the different sets of data are weighted, such that the weights can be used to modify the stored sets of data for the geographic locations).
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Busch discloses a method comprising:
normalizing the modified primary set of data to a predefined format set of primary data (paragraph [0414], the data is formed to a particular format).
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 1 above, Busch discloses a method comprising:
exporting the predefined format set of primary data (paragraph [0335], the formatted data is sent to a particular location external to the where the data was gathered).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 1 above, Busch discloses a method comprising:
collecting the secondary set of data from the plurality of third parties (paragraph [0343], a third party is used to obtain the sets of data).
Consider claim 11, and as applied to claim 1 above, Busch discloses a method comprising:
the comparison metric is based on a weighted average of differences between the secondary set of data and the primary set of data (paragraph [0343], an average is determined between the different sets of data).
Claims 12 – 21 recite the same, or nearly the same, claim limitations as those found in claims 1 – 11 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale. Claims 12 – 21 recite system claims, whereas claims 1 – 11 recite method claims, but they otherwise recite the same claim limitations. Therefore, the same rejections are applied therein.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
11. Zennaro et al. (US Patent 8,868,522) disclose a method of updating geographic data based on transactions. The transactions identify geographic location data and time data, which is used to update the geographic data. Based on the type, format, and time of the data obtained from the transaction, the geographic data can be updated to properly reflect a more accurate representation of the data.
Conclusion
12. Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Christopher Raab whose telephone number is (571) 270-1090. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Bhatia can be reached on (571) 272-3906. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or 703-305-3028.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/CHRISTOPHER J RAAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
December 23, 2025