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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final, first office action on the merits.
Claims 1-12 and 56 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 03/20/2025 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recite “determining, by using a processor, whether the two people”, it should be “determining, by using the processor, whether the two people”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-6 and 56 are directed to a method (process), and claims 7-12 are directed to a system (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-12, and 56 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claim 7 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1,
Regarding independent claims 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. (Original) A method of facilitating a meeting, wherein the method includes:
determining/suggesting, by using a processor, a possible meeting place for two or more people to meet and communicating the meeting place to both people via a communication network; and
determining, by using a processor, whether the two people are at the meeting place, and if so, generating a coupon/discount/incentive benefit which can be redeemed by one or both people at the meeting place.
The Applicant's Specification titled "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FACILITATING/ARRANGING MEETINGS" emphasizes the business need for determining, whether the two people are at the meeting place, and if so, generating a coupon/discount/incentive benefit which can be redeemed by one or both people at the meeting place" In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for " (Spec. figure 1).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 7 are recites the abstract idea of determining, whether the two people are at the meeting place, and if so, generating a coupon/discount/incentive benefit which can be redeemed by one or both people at the meeting place. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determining, whether the two people are at the meeting place, and if so, generating a coupon/discount/incentive benefit which can be redeemed by one or both people at the meeting place. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite determining, whether the two people are at the meeting place, and if so, generating a coupon/discount/incentive benefit which can be redeemed by one or both people at the meeting place. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 56 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly claim 8) wherein the determining/suggesting step more specifically includes determining/suggesting a possible meeting place based on (i) a present geographical location of each user or (ii) a possible future geographical location of each user at a particular point in time.
claim 3 (Similarly claim 9) which includes receiving, via a communication network, information on (i) the present geographical location of each user or (ii) the possible future geographical location of each user at a particular point in time.
claim 4 (Similarly claim 10) wherein for each user, the information on (i) the present geographical location of the said user or (ii) the possible future geographical location of the said user, is received from a mobile telecommunication device of the said user.
claim 5 (Similarly claim 11) wherein the step of determining whether the two people are at the meeting place includes using geographic location information which is associated with a mobile communication device of each person, in order to determine if the two people are at the meeting place at the same time.
claim 6 (Similarly claim 12) which includes communicating details of the coupon/discount/incentive benefit via a communication network to the mobile communication device of one, or each of, the users.
claim 56 A non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which instructions are stored which, if executed by a processor/computer, performs the method as claimed in claim 1.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, and 7.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-12, and 56 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, and 7 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A processor, and a communication network,
Claim 7.
A system, scheduling module, a processor, and a communication network,
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, and 7 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a system, scheduling module, a processor, and a communication network,
which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1-2). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, and 7 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for determining, whether the two people are at the meeting place, and if so, generating a coupon/discount/incentive benefit which can be redeemed by one or both people at the meeting place. In example aspects, based on different data and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention determine whether the two people are at the meeting place, and if so, generating a coupon/discount/incentive benefit which can be redeemed by one or both people at the meeting place. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 56 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 7 for example claim 56 “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium ”, but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 7, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-12, and 56 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, and 7 include a system, scheduling module, a processor, and a communication network. Further, claim 56 “a non-transitory computer readable medium”. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to determining, whether the two people are at the meeting place, and if so, generating a coupon/discount/incentive benefit which can be redeemed by one or both people at the meeting place.
Claims 1-12, and 56 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-12 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cappa et al. US 2020/0242707 (hereinafter Cappa).
Regarding Claim 1:
(Original) A method of facilitating a meeting, wherein the method includes:
determining/suggesting, by using a processor, a possible meeting place for two or more people to meet and communicating the meeting place to both people via a communication network; and (Cappa fig. 3 [0030-0031], “The method continues at step 310 with the processor 101 identifying a meetup location selected as a function of user preferences. For example, an embodiment app may be configured to match users with an available restaurant based on the type of restaurant the users might prefer. The method continues at step 312 with the processor 101 transmitting the meetup location to mobile electronic devices of each meeting party”.)
determining, by using a processor, whether the two people are at the meeting place, and if so, generating a coupon/discount/incentive benefit which can be redeemed by one or both people at the meeting place. (Cappa fig. 3 [0032], “providing a promotional coupon to the meeting parties for use at the meeting location when the meeting parties are within a set proximity of each other. In some scenarios wherein the promotional coupon is not used for the meeting, the promotional coupon value may be added to the recipient user's reward points balance for future use”.)
Regarding Claim 2:
(Original) Cappa disclose the method of claim 1,
Cappa further teach wherein the determining/suggesting step more specifically includes determining/suggesting a possible meeting place based on (i) a present geographical location of each user or (ii) a possible future geographical location of each user at a particular point in time. (Cappa [0035] & [0039], “geographic location, proximity to a user’s location … location”. Cappa [0048], “meetup location may be an agreed-upon location … suggested locations based on a condition that the locations are located between the meeting parties”. Also, see figure 4C [0054], [0130])
Regarding Claim 3:
(Original) Cappa disclose the method of claim 2,
Cappa further teach which includes receiving, via a communication network, information on (i) the present geographical location of each user or (ii) the possible future geographical location of each user at a particular point in time. (Cappa [0035], “either based on user input, selection, or from a user's profile, the app is configured to extract one or more .. graphic location, proximity to a user’s location”. Also, see fig. 4c … map annotated with profile links of available prospective contacts that are near the user’s present location”. Also, see [0036])
Regarding Claim 4:
(Original) Cappa disclose the method of claim 3,
Cappa further teach wherein for each user, the information on (i) the present geographical location of the said user or (ii) the possible future geographical location of the said user, is received from a mobile telecommunication device of the said user. (Cappa [0039], “The meetup location may be an agreed-upon location selected
from a list of acceptable/preferred locations generated by the app. For example, in one embodiment, both parties (that is, the prospective networking referral, and the user) receive one or more suggested locations to meet, where the suggested locations are generated by the app based on a condition that they are located between (for example, equidistant or approximately equidistant) the meeting parties”. figure 4c [0054], “displaying an exemplary map annotated with profile links of available prospective contacts that are near the user’s present location”. Also, see [0048])
Regarding Claim 5:
(Original) Cappa disclose the method of claim 4,
Cappa further teach wherein the step of determining whether the two people are at the meeting place includes using geographic location information which is associated with a mobile communication device of each person, in order to determine if the two people are at the meeting place at the same time. (Cappa fig. 3 [0032], “providing a promotional coupon to the meeting parties for use at the meeting location when the meeting parties are within a set proximity of each other. In some scenarios wherein the promotional coupon is not used for the meeting, the promotional coupon value may be added to the recipient user's reward points balance for future use”. Also, [0043], “use at the meeting location when the parties are within a set proximity of each other. Proximity detection can be accomplished using GPS and/or any available mobile device tracking technology”.)
Regarding Claim 6:
(Original) Cappa disclose the method of claim 5,
Cappa further teach which includes communicating details of the coupon/discount/incentive benefit via a communication network to the mobile communication device of one, or each of, the users. (Cappa [0043] & [0050], “use at the meeting location when the parties are within a set proximity of each other. Proximity detection can be accomplished using GPS and/or any available mobile device tracking technology”. Also, see [0073], [0094], & [0157] promotions and discount codes and cards”)
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 7 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13-55: Cancelled
13-55. (Canceled)
Regarding Claim 56:
(Original) Cappa further teach A non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which instructions are stored which, if executed by a processor/computer, performs the method as claimed in claim 1. (Cappa [0017], “computing devices, a storage medium”)
Regarding Claims 57-60: Cancelled
57-60. (Canceled)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zheng, Vincent W., et al. "Collaborative location and activity recommendations with gps history data." Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. 2010.
Catalano et al. US 2021/0056450: Scheduling cased on probabilistic availability.
Jackson US 2018/0225777: Securing a social engagement via a shared transaction.
Gueye US 2018/0216946: Method and system for facilitating provisioning of social activity data to a mobile device based on user preferences.
Nagaraj US 2018/0012195: Automated schedule system and methods.
Uretzky et al. US 2016/0253329: Methods and systems for location based group “meet-up” venue/time recommendation and poll.
Finder US 2016/0004778: online social networking service with human matchmaking.
Meushar WO 2014/037932: Meetings coordinating system and method.
Williams et al. US 2013/0143587: System and method for coordinating meetings between users of a mobile communication network.
Khorshadi et al. US 2013/0080204: Dynamic meeting location determination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624