DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office action in response to communications received on 7/08/2025. Claim 1 is pending and are examined. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings filed 7/8/2025 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claims include numerous numerical references to process elements as disclosed in the specification and drawings, however, in the absence of any context the numerical references render the claims confusing and indefinite. For clarity, the Examiner requires removal of the numerical references. 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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claimed limitations, as per claim 1, include the steps of:
A data processing system for providing user access to one or more devices, the system comprising processing means configured to:
i. determining a location identifier for a user;
ii. associating the location identifier with a user identifier for the user; and
iii. communicating the location identifier and the associated user identifier to an application.
Under Step One of the analysis under the Mayo framework, claim 1 is/are drawn to system (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claim 1 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the Mayo framework the claim(s) are determined to recite(s) the judicial exception of determining a location identifier for a user; associating the location identifier with a user identifier for the user; and communicating the location identifier and the associated user identifier to an application.
This judicial exception is similar to abstract ideas related to certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and as well is directed to mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion.
Under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis, the judicial exception expressed as the steps of the instant claims is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite one additional element, the element of using a processor or computing system including a local registry or memory to perform the steps of the claimed abstract idea. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions to perform the claimed steps of the invention), and therefore the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element of performing the inventive steps with a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Under step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to provide an inventive concept because the additional limitations of performing the steps with a computer processor, a display module, and a memory storing machine executable instructions represents insignificant data gathering and data processing steps requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Consequently, these elements are well
understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Applicant’s published written description as published paragraph [338] recites “server may comprise a computer processor running one or more server processes for communicating with client devices. The server processes comprise computer readable program instructions for carrying out the operations of the present invention,” written description paragraph [339 ] recites “wired or wireless communication s networks described above may be public, private, wired or wireless network. The communications network may include one or more of a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), the Internet, a mobile telephony communication system, or a satellite communication system. The communications network may comprise any suitable infrastructure, including copper cables, optical cables or fibres, routers, firewalls, switches, gateway computers and edge servers,” written description paragraph [343] recites “computer readable program instructions may be stored on a non-transitory, tangible computer readable medium. The computer readable storage medium may include one or more of an electronic storage device, a magnetic storage device, an optical storage device, an electromagnetic storage device, a semiconductor storage device, a portable computer disk, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), a static random access memory (SRAM), a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disk (DVD), a memory stick, a floppy disk,” and written description paragraph [344] recites “embodiments of the invention may be implemented as circuit board which may include a CPU, a bus, RAM, flash memory, one or more ports for operation of connected I/O apparatus such as printers, display, keypads, sensors and cameras, ROM, a communications sub-system such as a modem, and communications media.” Thus the claimed inventive steps are performed by generic or general purpose computing systems executing well known and understood instructions and processes which do not comprise significantly more than a known computing system, or comprise improvements to another technological field.
Further, as per MPEP 2106, and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea") and as per Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer") simply performing the steps of an abstract idea by a computing apparatus does not make an inventive concept statutorily eligible. Therefore, it is clear from Applicants’ specification that the elements and modules in the claims require no more than a generic computer (e.g., a general-purpose computing device) to perform generic computer functions (e.g., accessing, transmitting/receiving, sorting, and storing data) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry. None of the limitations, considered as a whole and as an ordered combination provide eligibility, because the steps of the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in claim 1 of this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claims 1 is rejected as indefinite because the Claim limitation “processing means configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The Examiner recommends replacing “processing means” with hardware or the explicit type of hardware for performing the claimed steps.
Additionally Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kundu et al. (US 2017/0169528).
Regarding claim 1, Kundu discloses the limitations as follows:
A data processing system for providing user access to one or more devices (108) (paras. [0117], [0118], [0136-146], Figs 2, 4: providing user with access to data from multiple airport systems), the system comprising processing means (103) configured to:
determine a location identifier for a user (paras. [0149], [0156], [0185]: measuring passenger’s location, “Georeferencing distance information 605 indicates that the passenger is 900 meters from the gate,” determine “location of the user's cell phone or smart device and computing the output using appropriate input variables,” 185 “User data includes user identification, user mobile device information e.g. IMSI, RUIM, user mobile device location by nearest beacon or beacon triangulation, user mobile device location by GPS,”);
associate the location identifier with a user identifier for the user (para. [0185]: display data feed including user mobile device location (i.e. location identifier) and user identification together); and
communicate (3013) the location identifier and associated user identifier to an application (301) (paras. [0183]-[0185]: data, including the user mobile location and user identification, are collected by the centralized data collection node for display on the centralized display - “Central Control Node 1301, also known as Network Operation Center (NOC), system administrator, or operator, oversees, operates, administers, maintains, and updates the system 1300. Internal airport real time data feed 1302 external airline real time data fed 1303, government security real time data feed 1304, and third party real time data feed 1305 all communicate to the centralized data collection node, 306”).
Prior art considered but not relied upon includes:
1) Stewart (US 6259405) teaches A mobile user (MU) may use a portable computing device (PCD) to connect to the network and access information or services from the network. Upon detection of the wireless signal by a first access point in proximity to the PCD, and upon receipt of the identification information indicating the user of the PCD, the first access point may transmit the identification information, as well as the known geographic location of the first access point, to one or more providers on the network. The known geographic location of the first access point indicates the approximate location of the PCD of the mobile user. The first access point may also transmit the known geographic location to a memory associated with the PCD, thereby advising the PCD of its location. (col. 2, l. 50 – col. 3, l. 5).
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, claim 1 is rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON S LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4583. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARON S LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights