DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 23, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed February 23, 2026.
Claims 1-29 have been cancelled.
Claims 30-68 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 2 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has commented on paragraph 7 of the Office Action mailed on August 21, 2025. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 7 provides a detailed explanation of why the sections of the specification cannot be read into the claim term “nuanced artificial intelligence.” The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) means the claim language used is not definite. In other words, the current claim language does not define the metes and bounds of the claim.
On page 2 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has commented on paragraph 8 of the Office Action mailed on August 21, 2025. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 8 provides a detailed explanation of why the sections of the specification cannot be read into the claim term “reasoning substrate.” Applicant’s specification describes a reasoning substrate 61 times and, in several embodiments, this does not amount to a definition that can be read from the specification into the claim. Since the various embodiments of a reasoning substrate cannot be improperly imported from the specification into the claim, the Byron reference does not need to disclose INTELNET graphs, atoms, energy tuples, or energy. The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In other words, Byron does not need to use the exact words “reasoning substrate” in order to teach the claimed reasoning substrate. As shown in the rejection below, Bryon does perform the claimed reasoning by disclosing semantic analysis using various types of information.
On page 2 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has commented on paragraph 10 of the Office Action mailed on August 21, 2025. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A prima facia case has been made for each rejection as shown in the individual rejections below. Further, Examiner maintains a complete response to each of Applicant’s arguments has been provided both in this Office Action and throughout prosecution. Examiner maintains that applying claim interpretation as explained in MPEP 2111 is the standard the Examiner is required to apply and is not a straw man argument as alleged by Applicant.
On page 3 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has commented on paragraph 11 of the Office Action mailed on August 21, 2025. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner. A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
On page 3 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has commented on paragraphs 12, 16, 17, and 18 of the Office Action mailed on August 21, 2025. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the rejection below, the claims genuinely only recite abstract ideas implemented with high level additional elements. The use of a computer as a tool is distinct from an improvement to a computer. A general allegation that the claims define something not well-understood, routine, and/or conventional is not persuasive without specifically pointing to the language of the claims. Examiner has provided detailed analysis of the claims under the Alice/Mayo framework in the rejection below.
On page 3 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has commented on paragraphs 12, 16, 17, and 18 of the Office Action mailed on August 21, 2025. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is improper to read limitations from the specification into the claims. See MPEP 2111.01(II). Second, Applicant’s claims are broad and encompass the narrower disclosures of Byron. "A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus." The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Gosteli claimed a genus of 21 specific chemical species of bicyclic thia-aza compounds in Markush claims. The prior art reference applied against the claims disclosed two of the chemical species. The parties agreed that the prior art species would anticipate the claims unless applicant was entitled to his foreign priority date.); MPEP 2131.02(I). Whether Byron overlaps meaningfully with the totality of Applicant’s invention is irrelevant because what matters is what Applicant has claimed. As shown in the rejection, Byron is the evidence that teaches the claimed simulation of a reasoning substrate and Examiner continues to maintain, as explain in the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), that the claims as written are broad. In other words, Byron represents a species of Applicant’s claimed genus. The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
On page 3 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has commented on paragraphs 15 of the Office Action mailed on August 21, 2025. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding “nuanced artificial intelligence,” the formula in [00218] of application 15/573,308 does not provide a definition of nuance. As explained above, even if that formula were substituted for “nuanced” it would not be a reasonable interpretation of the actual claim term “nuanced artificial intelligence” because there is no way of understand how that formula modifies the term artificial intelligence. Regarding “spatial proximity,” “spatially separated,” “temporal proximity,” Examiner maintains there is no objective standard for determining when these occur. The Orthokinetics case referred to language that varied based upon the underlying automobile which would have known easily attainable dimensions. The present claims do not refer to known spatial or temporal dimensions of time or proximity in order to make that determination. In other words, a plan does not have known spatial or temporal dimensions to determine proximity or separation in the way that fitting into an automobile has known easily attainable dimensions to determine fit. Regarding “psychological nature,” it is an approximation of psychological and it is unclear the extent to which “nature” is intended to expand the reach of what psychological is intended to cover. Regarding “likely to generate a meaningful experience” Examiner maintains likely to generate is a term of degree and meaningful experience a subjective term neither of which provide an objective standard for determining the scope of the terms. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV); MPEP 2173.05(b)(I).
On pages 3-4 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has commented on paragraphs 19 of the Office Action mailed on August 21, 2025. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Byron is the evidence for the rejection under 35 USC 102. A rejection under 35 USC 102 is a rejection of the claim. The argument here does not reference a particular claim number. The only example provided of Byron’s deficiency is an allegation that Byron does not disclose Applicant’s claimed “atom” however, none of the claims use the word “atom” and therefore Examiner cannot determine where Applicant finds the rejection deficient. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The rejection below provides citations to the relevant portions of Byron for each claimed limitation. The claim mapping in the rejection demonstrates how the cited art teaches each and every element.
On page 4 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has commented on paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Office Action mailed on August 21, 2025. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection below, the prior art discloses or teaches the language of the claim. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
On page 4 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has submitted arguments on the previous rejections under 35 USC 112. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding “nuanced artificial intelligence,” the formula in [00218] of application 15/573,308 does not provide a definition of nuance. As explained above, even if that formula were substituted for “nuanced” it would not be a reasonable interpretation of the actual claim term “nuanced artificial intelligence” because there is no way of understand how that formula modifies the term artificial intelligence. Regarding “spatial proximity,” “spatially separated,” “temporal proximity,” Examiner maintains there is no objective standard for determining when these occur. The Orthokinetics case referred to language that varied based upon the underlying automobile which would have known easily attainable dimensions. The present claims do not refer to known spatial or temporal dimensions of time or proximity in order to make that determination. In other words, a plan does not have known spatial or temporal dimensions to determine proximity or separation in the way that fitting into an automobile has known easily attainable dimensions to determine fit. Regarding “psychological nature,” it is an approximation of psychological and it is unclear the extent to which “nature” is intended to expand the reach of what psychological is intended to cover. Regarding “likely to generate a meaningful experience” Examiner maintains likely to generate is a term of degree and meaningful experience a subjective term neither of which provide an objective standard for determining the scope of the terms. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV); MPEP 2173.05(b)(I). Examiner maintains a complete response to each of Applicant’s arguments has been provided both in this Office Action and throughout prosecution.
On page 4 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has submitted arguments on the previous rejections under 35 USC 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains a complete response to each of Applicant’s arguments has been provided both in this Office Action and throughout prosecution. As detailed in the rejection below, the claims only recite abstract ideas implemented with high level additional elements. The use of a computer as a tool which is distinct from an improvement to a computer. A general allegation that the claims define something not well-understood, routine, and/or conventional is not persuasive without specifically pointing to the language of the claims. Examiner has provided detailed analysis of the claims under the Alice/Mayo framework in the rejection below.
On page 4 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has submitted the following arguments on the previous rejections under 35 USC 102:
As noted in the previous replies with respect to Byron and Fan (both fully addressed but still not rebutted), Examiner cannot simply state 'Byron discloses' and then paste in Applicant's claims. This does not constitute a prima facie case - these are mere bald assertions without more. This is not allowed. Examiner must provide argumentation and evidence.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim has been pasted as a part of the claim mapping. In the rejection there is a citation to the portion of Byron that disclose the pasted claim language following the pasted claim language. This is an attempt to link the citations of Byron to the particular claim limitations. In other words, the rejection alleges the cited portion of Byron discloses the pasted claim language. Byron is evidence of the 102 rejection and the citations to Byron do constitute a prima facie case.
On pages 4-5 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has submitted the following arguments on the previous rejections under 35 USC 102:
It is unclear, and Examiner does not provide the required argumentation with respect to, which cited element(s) of Byron [and/or Fan] ostensibly teach "wherein at least one element of the reasoning substrate relates to at least one item selected from the group of at least one atom and at least one element of atomic knowledge data". Examiner may not simply excise these elements from the claim when conducting his analysis and Byron [and/or Fan] clearly does not teach any of them. Past argumentation (cited in part below) indicates that Examiner is required to explain exactly which specific element(s) of Byron [and/or Fan] teach every element of "wherein at least one element of the reasoning substrate relates to at least one item selected from the group of at least one atom and at least one element of atomic knowledge data" as arranged as in the claim and he must show his work. Failing such a demonstration, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the rejections are unsubstantiated and therefore cannot be maintained.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argument here does not reference a particular claim number. The terms “atom” and “atomic knowledge” do not appear in the claim language therefore Examiner cannot determine where Applicant finds the rejection deficient. Examiner maintains that the claims are broad. For example, the group of items listed in claim 30 includes 31 types of information including “knowledge, general data, general information,” these elements alone are broad enough to encompass virtually all types of data. Claim 30 only requires “one item selected from the group” meaning one item of virtually any type of data will disclose that portion of the limitation. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The rejection below provides citations to the relevant portions of Byron for each claimed limitation. The claim mapping in the rejection demonstrates how the cited art teaches each and every element.
On pages 5 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has submitted the following arguments on the previous rejections under 35 USC 102:
Examiner is obligated by law to read claims as wholes - he cannot merely attempt to find analogues of elements taken alone and out of context and when they 'seem close enough', move forward to issue rejections on this basis.
… Byron [and/or Fan] clearly teach [very different inventions] having no overlap with any meaningful aspect of Applicant’s work.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner is not taking the claims out of context and insisting Bryon “seems close enough” but instead Examiner insists the claim language is far broader than Applicant alleges. Byron and Fan do overlap with the claimed aspect of Applicant’s work. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The rejection below provides citations to the relevant portions of Byron for each claimed limitation. The claim mapping in the rejection demonstrates how the cited art teaches each and every element.
On pages 6 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has submitted the following arguments on the previous rejections under 35 USC 102:
Examiner may not simply pretend as if the claims at issue, as dependents of Claim 30, do not contain the element(s) "reasoning substrate" and "wherein at least one element of the reasoning substrate relates to at least one item selected from the group of at least one atom and at least one element of atomic knowledge data" at a minimum. Byron absolutely does not teach these element(s), so cannot be said to have taught them as arranged in the claim, etc. as would be required in order to sustain the rejection. Withdrawal of the rejections is therefore respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The terms “atom” and “atomic knowledge” do not appear in the claim language. Regarding Claim 30, deep semantic analysis in Byron is a reasoning substrate related to artificial intelligence and the inputs to that analysis are the items involved in the reasoning substrate. As detailed in the rejection below, generating a reasoning substrate wherein at least one element of the reasoning substrate relates to nuanced artificial intelligence (Byron [0033], [0063], [0079], [0086], [0089], [0098], [0100], [0119] deep semantic analysis) involving at least one item … (Byron [0033], [0034], [0039], [0042], [0048], [0051], [0073], [0096], [0097] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis). Deep semantic analysis is a type of natural language processing and natural language processing falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of artificial intelligence. That deep semantic analysis is being used to infer-user interest and sentiments as well as propose trip itineraries, therefore its function falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a reasoning substrate. The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In other words, Byron does not need to use the exact words “reasoning substrate” in order to teach the claimed reasoning substrate.
On pages 6 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has submitted the following arguments on the previous rejections under 35 USC 102:
At the risk of repetition, Examiner has never acknowledged the existence of, much less rebutted, any element of Applicant's arguments here (incorporated by reference). How has Applicant misunderstood the law? As these arguments clearly demonstrate that Examiner's rejections have not met their burden, and Examiner has not shown - only asserted - otherwise, withdrawal of the rejections is therefore requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has acknowledged and rebutted all of Applicants arguments. Applicant’s arguments insist the claims are narrower than the law allows. Examiner has explained, both above and throughout prosecution, each instance this has occurred. It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner. A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
On page 6 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has submitted arguments regarding the previous rejections under 35 USC 103 stating prior argumentation has not been acknowledged. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has acknowledged and rebutted all of Applicants arguments.
On page 6 of the remarks filed February 23, 2026 Applicant has submitted arguments regarding the first action final stating prior argumentation has not been acknowledged. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has acknowledged and rebutted all of Applicants arguments. All claims are identical to the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b).
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.
Claims 30-48, 54-55, 58, and 60-68 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.
The following terms are relative terms which render the claim indefinite because they are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention:
“nuanced artificial intelligence” in claim 30 line 2, claim 33 line 3, claim 46 line 4, claim 60 line 4, claim 63 lines 7 and 9 recite a term of degree, namely how nuanced modifies artificial intelligence, with no objective standard for measuring that degree. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(I).
“spatial proximity” in claim 54 line 2 and claim 58 line 2 is a term of degree with no objective standard for measuring that degree. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(I);
“likely to generate a meaningful experience” in claim 55 line 2 likely to generate is a term of degree and meaningful experience a subjective term neither of which provide an objective standard for determining the scope of the terms. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV); MPEP 2173.05(b)(I);
“spatially separated” in claim 58 line 1 is a term of degree with no objective standard for measuring that degree. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(I);
“temporal proximity” in claim 58 line 3 is a term of degree with no objective standard for measuring that degree. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(I);
“meaningful elements” in claim 65 line 2 is a subjective term that does not provide an objective standard for determining the scope of the claim because what may be meaningful to one person may not be meaningful to another. See MPEP 2173.05(b). What is “Meaningful” is subjective based on the person. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV);
“psychological nature” in claim 67 line 2 does not provide any distinction between psychological and psychological nature and therefore represents an approximation that does not provided a standard for measuring the scope of the term. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III); and
Claims 31-32, 34-45, 47-48, 61-62, and 64-68 depend upon an above rejected claim and therefore inherit the rejection of the claim they depend upon.
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 30-68 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.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 30-62 and 64-68 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claim 63 recites a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claim 30, as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of generating a reasoning substrate, which is a mental process. The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by evaluating inputs types to generate a reasoning substrate. The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “generating a reasoning substrate,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: generating a reasoning substrate. The mere nominal recitation of relating to nuanced artificial intelligence does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claim 64-65, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: gathering simulation input by combining answers to queries, generating a portion of gathered information.
Claims 33 and 63, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of using a reasoning substrate to generate items, which is a method of organizing human activity and a mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and following rules or instructions) by instructing a simulation to generate items. The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by using reasoning to generate items. The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “using a reasoning substrate to generate items,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: generating a reasoning substrate and generating items by simulating a reasoning substrate. The mere nominal recitation of a processor, a tangible non-transitory memory, and relation to nuanced artificial intelligence does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 34-35, 40-41, 43, and 45, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: inputting geospatial data, providing value-added information, providing the ability to interact with items, re-simulation, and explaining reasoning.
Claim 46, as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of awareness of the state of an individual, which is a mental process. The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by observing and evaluating the state of an individual. The mental process of “awareness of the state of an individual,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: awareness of the aggregate state of an individual. The mere nominal recitation of a computer and relation to nuanced artificial intelligence does not take the claim of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claim 47, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: awarding points to an aggregate state.
Claim 49, as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of engaging an individual with a plan, which is a method of organizing human activity and a mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and following rules or instructions) by managing an interaction between an individual and a plan. The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by observing and evaluating plan engagement. The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “engaging an individual with a plan,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: engaging an individual with a plan. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 50-58, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: sharing engagement, choosing participation, discovering other individuals engaged with the plan, exercising access controls for sharing engagement, notifying individuals of proximity information, notifying individuals the plan will be meaningful, enabling communication between individuals, and agreeing on regaining spatial proximity.
Claim 60, as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of enabling a user to input information, which is a method of organizing human activity and a mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and following rules or instructions) by enabling user input which is an interaction between people. The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by enabling a user to provide their input. The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “enabling a user to input information,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: enabling an individual to indicate information. The mere nominal recitation of relating to nuanced artificial intelligence does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claim 61, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: adding the information to a reasoning substrate.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 30, 33, and 60 recite the additional elements: relation to nuanced artificial intelligence. The relating to nuanced artificial intelligence limits the field of use by generally linking the identified abstract idea to the artificial intelligence field. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of inputting an aggregate state in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing state input process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Claim 49 does not recite additional elements. The claims as a whole do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claims as a whole are not implemented with a particular machine. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 46 recite the additional elements: computer and relation to nuanced artificial intelligence which are used to perform the awareness steps. The computer limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The relating to nuanced artificial intelligence limits the field of use by generally linking the identified abstract idea to the artificial intelligence field. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of inputting an aggregate state in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing state input process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 63 recite the additional elements: a processor, a tangible non-transitory memory, and relation to nuanced artificial intelligence which are used to perform the generating steps. These processor and non-transitory memory limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The relating to nuanced artificial intelligence limits the field of use by generally linking the identified abstract idea to the artificial intelligence field. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of generating items in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing item generation process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claim 49 does not include additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that could be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claims 30, 33, and 60, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims limit the field of use by reciting a relation to nuanced artificial intelligence. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claims 46 and 63 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a computer, a processor, and a tangible non-transitory memory. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite generic computer functions by reciting processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a computer (Specification [0134], [0143]), a processor (Specification [00369]), and a tangible non-transitory memory (Specification [00373]). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a computer, a processor, and a tangible non-transitory memory. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims limit the field of use by reciting a relation to nuanced artificial intelligence. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claim 39, 42, 59, 62, and 66, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 39, 42, 59, 62, and 66, as a whole, merely adds the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a display, updating a display, adding information to a storage medium. Claim 42, 59, and 62 recites a generic computer performing generic computer functions by reciting updating a display, uploading information, and a storage medium. Regarding claim 39, 62, and 66 the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a display (Specification [00126], [00143]), a storage medium (Specification [0373]). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 31-32, 36-38, 44, 48, and 67-68, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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)(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) 30-35, 39-48, and 60-68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Byron et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2016/0125502 A1), hereinafter Byron.
Claim 30:
Byron discloses a method comprising
generating a reasoning substrate wherein at least one element of the reasoning substrate relates to nuanced artificial intelligence involving at least one item selected from the group of gathered simulation input information, database-derived information, date information, time information, occasion information, interest information, place information, discount information, cultural information, destination information, experience information, cost information, transport information, mind state information, goal information, interest information, need information, travel information, personality information, emotion information, mood information, psychological information, financial information, location information, audience information, companion information, life situation information, knowledge, general data, general information, and distance information (Byron [0033] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis; [0034] access user ratings and reviews of travel posts; [0039] inventory of factors are relevant to travel destinations and personal interests; [0042] extract a list of travel relevant features; [0048] transfer user sentiment from user ratings/reviews to each extracted feature; [0051] gather additional constraints from the user such as time of year and duration of the trip and budget; [0063] content based recommendations using a deep natural language processing; [0073] see if there are existing sentiments; [0079] infer or discover potential interest and related sentiments of each user; [0086] deep semantic relationships; [0089] invention uses a deep semantic analyzer platform such as IBM Watson; [0096] semantic meta-data; [0097] semantic meta-data is analyzed and organized into hierarchical layers of abstraction; [0098] discover deep similarities; [0100] relationship lines provided to assist in understanding items in each layer; [0119] user ratings, inferred preferences and dislikes, and explicit user preferences and dislikes can be combined).
Claim 31:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 30, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
wherein at least one element of the at least one item is comprised of multiple components in combination (Byron [0051] build a complete itinerary around an item of potential interest; [0064] a key unique point here is what is proposed for the traveler is a composite product (analogous to a shopping cart) rather than an individual item).
Claim 32:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 30, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
wherein at least one element of the at least one item constitutes a type of adventure (Byron [0066] activity level (action vs. passive); [0098] rock climbing opportunities).
Claim 33:
Byron discloses a method comprising,
via simulation of a reasoning substrate wherein at least one element of at least one item selected from the group of the reasoning substrate and the simulation relates to nuanced artificial intelligence, generating one or more items selected from the group of plans, recommendations, suggested groupings of individuals, sets of relevant purchases, and information to be communicated to the user (Byron [0033] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis; [0034] access user ratings and reviews of travel posts; [0039] inventory of factors are relevant to travel destinations and personal interests; [0042] extract a list of travel relevant features; [0048] transfer user sentiment from user ratings/reviews to each extracted feature; [0051] build a complete itinerary and gather additional constraints from the user such as time of year and duration of the trip and budget; [0052] trip construction is restarted with different seeds; [0063] content based recommendations using a deep natural language processing; [0064] composite product is offered rather than an individual item; [0073] see if there are existing sentiments; [0075] repeat process if the itinerary is not accepted; [0079] infer or discover potential interest and related sentiments of each user; [0086] deep semantic relationships; [0089] invention uses a deep semantic analyzer platform such as IBM Watson; [0096] semantic meta-data; [0097] semantic meta-data is analyzed and organized into hierarchical layers of abstraction; [0098] discover deep similarities; [0100] relationship lines provided to assist in understanding items in each layer; [0112] repeat semantic analysis; [0119] user ratings, inferred preferences and dislikes, and explicit user preferences and dislikes can be combined).
Claim 34:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 33, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
using geospatial data as input to the simulation (Byron [0033], [0039] source of information includes inventory of factors relevant to travel destinations).
Claim 35:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 33, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
providing value-added information services relative to the one or more items (Byron [0052] recommended trips are scored based on total sentiment value for the items they incorporate and a variety of unique and varying alternate itineraries are proposed; [0070], [0075] one or more itineraries).
Claim 39:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 33, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
at a display: displaying the one or more items on the display (Byron [0133] display; [0075], [0078] propose itineraries to user for review).
Claim 40:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 39, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
the ability to interact with or alter the elements of the one or more items (Byron [0075], [0078] review itineraries to accept or not accept an itinerary).
Claim 41:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 40, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
re-simulation involving the one or more items (Byron [0052] trip construction is restarted with different seeds; [0075] repeat process if the itinerary is not accepted; [0112] repeat semantic analysis).
Claim 42:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 41, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
update of the display (Byron [0133] display; [0075], [0078] propose itineraries to user for review).
Claim 43:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 33, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
at least one item selected from the group of re-simulation of the reasoning substrate and subsequent updating (Byron [0052] trip construction is restarted with different seeds; [0075] repeat process if the itinerary is not accepted; [0112] repeat semantic analysis).
Claim 44:
Bryon discloses all the elements of claim 33, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
wherein at least one of the one or more items has a type of at least one item selected from the group of places, interests, activities, experiences, people, groups, and entities (Byron [0042] extract a list of travel relevant features; [0048] transfer user sentiment from user ratings/reviews to each extracted feature; [0049] find travel activities that match items with positive sentiment; [0051] build a complete itinerary and gather additional constraints from the user such as time of year and duration of the trip and budget; [0052] trip construction is restarted with different seeds; [0059] interests for a family or social group; [0063] content based recommendations using a deep natural language processing; [0064] composite product is offered rather than an individual item; [0079] infer or discover potential interest and related sentiments of each user; [0119] user ratings, inferred preferences and dislikes, and explicit user preferences and dislikes can be combined).
Claim 45:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 33, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
explaining, in part or in whole, reasoning relative to the one or more items (Byron [0052] recommended trips are evaluated (scored) based on the total sentiment value for the items they incorporate).
Claim 46:
Byron discloses a method comprising
at least one item selected from the group of obtaining, computing, generating, determining, and simulating awareness of a computer of at least one individual’s, group’s, or entity’s state wherein at least one element of the at least one item relates to nuanced artificial intelligence (Byron [0033] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis; [0034] access user ratings and reviews of travel posts; [0039] inventory of factors are relevant to travel destinations and personal interests; [0042] extract a list of travel relevant features; [0048] transfer user sentiment from user ratings/reviews to each extracted feature; [0051] build a complete itinerary and gather additional constraints from the user such as time of year and duration of the trip and budget; [0052] trip construction is restarted with different seeds; [0063] content based recommendations using a deep natural language processing; [0064] composite product is offered rather than an individual item; [0073] see if there are existing sentiments; [0075] repeat process if the itinerary is not accepted; [0079] infer or discover potential interest and related sentiments of each user; [0086] deep semantic relationships; [0089] invention uses a deep semantic analyzer platform such as IBM Watson; [0096] semantic meta-data; [0097] semantic meta-data is analyzed and organized into hierarchical layers of abstraction; [0098] discover deep similarities; [0100] relationship lines provided to assist in understanding items in each layer; [0112] repeat semantic analysis; [0119] user ratings, inferred preferences and dislikes, and explicit user preferences and dislikes can be combined).
Claim 47:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 46, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
awarding points relative to the state (Byron [0048] transfer user sentiment from user ratings/reviews to each extracted feature; [0049] find travel activities that match positive sentiment; [0050] calculate similarity between user’s positively rated factors and travel/tour activities; [0052] recommended trips are evaluated (scored) based on the total sentiment value for the items they incorporate).
Claim 48:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 47, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
wherein the points are awarded based on at least one item selected from the group of completion of activities, completion of activities implying at least one characteristic of the at least one individual, group, or entity and completion of activities fulfilling at least one spatial relation (Byron [0033] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis; [0034] access user ratings and reviews of travel posts; [0039] inventory of factors are relevant to travel destinations and personal interests; [0042] extract a list of travel relevant features; [0048] transfer user sentiment from user ratings/reviews to each extracted feature; [0049] find travel activities that match positive sentiment; [0050] calculate similarity between user’s positively rated factors and travel/tour activities; [0051] build a complete itinerary and gather additional constraints from the user such as time of year and duration of the trip and budget; [0052] trip construction is restarted with different seeds).
Claim 60:
Byron discloses a method comprising:
enabling at least one individual, group, or entity to indicate information regarding at least one item selected from the group of at least one plan, at least one plan element, at least one plan outcome, emotion, and experience wherein at least one element of the at least one item relates to nuanced artificial intelligence (Byron [0033] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis; [0034] access user ratings and reviews of travel posts; [0039] inventory of factors are relevant to travel destinations and personal interests; [0042] extract a list of travel relevant features; [0048] transfer user sentiment from user ratings/reviews to each extracted feature; [0051] build a complete itinerary and gather additional constraints from the user such as time of year and duration of the trip and budget; [0052] trip construction is restarted with different seeds; [0063] content based recommendations using a deep natural language processing; [0064] composite product is offered rather than an individual item; [0073] see if there are existing sentiments; [0075] repeat process if the itinerary is not accepted; [0079] infer or discover potential interest and related sentiments of each user; [0086] deep semantic relationships; [0089] invention uses a deep semantic analyzer platform such as IBM Watson; [0096] semantic meta-data; [0097] semantic meta-data is analyzed and organized into hierarchical layers of abstraction; [0098] discover deep similarities; [0100] relationship lines provided to assist in understanding items in each layer; [0112] repeat semantic analysis; [0119] user ratings, inferred preferences and dislikes, and explicit user preferences and dislikes can be combined).
Claim 61:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 60 as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
addition of the information to a reasoning substrate (Byron [0033] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis; [0034] access user ratings and reviews of travel posts; [0039] inventory of factors are relevant to travel destinations and personal interests; [0051] gather additional constraints from the user such as time of year and duration of the trip and budget; [0052] trip construction is restarted with different seeds; [0073] see if there are existing sentiments; [0075] repeat process if the itinerary is not accepted; [0079] infer or discover potential interest and related sentiments of each user; [0119] user ratings, inferred preferences and dislikes, and explicit user preferences and dislikes can be combined).
Claim 62:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 60 as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
addition of the information to a storage medium (Byron [0041] crawl and populate a collection of items the user has rated/reviewed, frequently visited, liked on social media, etc. Store the user’s own ratings/reviews and also supporting information; [0121] computer readable storage medium; [0126] computer readable storage medium executed by a processing apparatus).
Claim 63:
Byron discloses a system comprising:
a tangible, non-transitory memory communicating with a processor (Byron [0121] computer readable storage medium; [0126] computer readable storage medium executed by a processing apparatus),
the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor (Byron [0121] computer readable storage medium; [0126] computer readable storage medium executed by a processing apparatus), cause the processor to perform operations comprising at least one item selected from the group of:
generating a reasoning substrate wherein at least one element of the reasoning substrate relates to nuanced artificial intelligence (Byron [0033] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis; [0034] access user ratings and reviews of travel posts; [0039] inventory of factors are relevant to travel destinations and personal interests; [0073] see if there are existing sentiments; [0075] repeat process if the itinerary is not accepted; [0079] infer or discover potential interest and related sentiments of each user; [0086] deep semantic relationships; [0089] invention uses a deep semantic analyzer platform such as IBM Watson; [0096] semantic meta-data; [0097] semantic meta-data is analyzed and organized into hierarchical layers of abstraction; [0098] discover deep similarities; [0100] relationship lines provided to assist in understanding items in each layer; [0112] repeat semantic analysis); and
via simulation of a reasoning substrate wherein at least one element of at least one item selected from the group of the reasoning substrate and the simulation relates to nuanced artificial intelligence, generating one or more items selected from the group of plans, recommendations, travel-related information, information, data, content, psychological information, awareness of the state of at least one individual, group, or entity, suggested groupings of individuals, groups, or entities, and purchases (Byron [0033] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis; [0034] access user ratings and reviews of travel posts; [0039] inventory of factors are relevant to travel destinations and personal interests; [0042] extract a list of travel relevant features; [0048] transfer user sentiment from user ratings/reviews to each extracted feature; [0051] build a complete itinerary and gather additional constraints from the user such as time of year and duration of the trip and budget; [0052] trip construction is restarted with different seeds; [0063] content based recommendations using a deep natural language processing; [0064] composite product is offered rather than an individual item; [0073] see if there are existing sentiments; [0075] repeat process if the itinerary is not accepted; [0079] infer or discover potential interest and related sentiments of each user; [0119] user ratings, inferred preferences and dislikes, and explicit user preferences and dislikes can be combined).
Claim 64:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 30, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
wherein the gathered simulation input information is comprised of answers to queries addressing at least one item selected from the group of mind information, personality information, psychological information, emotion information, mood information, financial information, personal information, location information, date information, time information, place information, group information, need information, want information, occasion information, discount information, status information, social status information, information about daily life, interest information, goal information, travel information, general information, information about wants, information about desires, knowledge, and personal situation information (Byron [0033] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis; [0034] access user ratings and reviews of travel posts; [0039] inventory of factors are relevant to travel destinations and personal interests; [0051] gather additional constraints from the user such as time of year and duration of the trip and budget; [0079] infer or discover potential interest and related sentiments of each user; [0119] user ratings, inferred preferences and dislikes, and explicit user preferences and dislikes can be combined.
Claim 65:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 30, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
generation of any portion of the gathered simulation input information via any combination of meaningful elements (Byron [0033] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis; [0034] access user ratings and reviews of travel posts; [0039] inventory of factors are relevant to travel destinations and personal interests; [0042] extract a list of travel relevant features; [0048] transfer user sentiment from user ratings/reviews to each extracted feature; [0051] build a complete itinerary and gather additional constraints from the user such as time of year and duration of the trip and budget; [0052] trip construction is restarted with different seeds; [0063] content based recommendations using a deep natural language processing; [0064] composite product is offered rather than an individual item; [0073] see if there are existing sentiments; [0075] repeat process if the itinerary is not accepted; [0079] infer or discover potential interest and related sentiments of each user; [0119] user ratings, inferred preferences and dislikes, and explicit user preferences and dislikes can be combined).
Claim 66:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 30, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
at a display, the generation of any portion of the gathered simulation input information via the combination of displayed meaningful elements (Byron [0133] display; [0075], [0078] propose itineraries to user for review).
Claim 67:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 64, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
wherein at least one element of the queries involves queries of a psychological nature (Byron [0033] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis; [0034] access user ratings and reviews of travel posts; [0039] inventory of factors are relevant to travel destinations and personal interests; [0042] extract a list of travel relevant features; [0048] transfer user sentiment from user ratings/reviews to each extracted feature; [0051] gather additional constraints from the user such as time of year and duration of the trip and budget; [0073] see if there are existing sentiments; [0079] infer or discover potential interest and related sentiments of each user; [0119] user ratings, inferred preferences and dislikes, and explicit user preferences and dislikes can be combined).
Claim 68:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 64, as shown above. Additionally, Byron discloses:
wherein at least one element of the queries is includes at least one semantic aspect equivalent to at least one of the group of "I am the life of the party", "I like to talk about feelings", "I pay attention to details", "I make plans and stick to them", "Life can be irritating!", "I am full of ideas", and "Are you the adventurous type?" (Byron [0033] access sources of information for deep semantic analysis; [0066] activity level (action vs. passive); [0098] rock climbing opportunities; [0119] user ratings, inferred preferences and dislikes, and explicit user preferences and dislikes can be combined).
Claims 49-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2012/0102409 A1), hereinafter Fan.
Claim 49:
Fan discloses a method comprising
engaging of at least one individual, group, or entity with at least one plan (Fan [0130] dynamically update and present tour route; [0131], [0153], [0170], [0233] User Equipment users in a group have a customized tour generated and the users can communicate with each other; [0136] customized tour map presented to UE users in a group or sub-group; [0150] dynamic map displayed to a tour group; [0156] display a geo map of an event to other group members; [0240] tour route and itinerary).
Claim 50:
Fan discloses all the elements of claim 49, as shown above. Additionally, Fan discloses:
sharing engagement with the plan with at least one individual, group, or entity (Fan [0131], [0153], [0170], [0233] User Equipment users in a group have a customized tour generated and the users can communicate with each other).
Claim 51:
Fan discloses all the elements of claim 50, as shown above. Additionally, Fan discloses:
wherein the at least one individual, group, or entity has the choice of accepting or rejecting participation in the plan (Fan [0139] tour guide may accept a request by two adults to use their own smart phones to access the tour).
Claim 52:
Fan discloses all the elements of claim 49, as shown above. Additionally, Fan discloses:
enabling at least one individual, group, or entity to discover the location of at least one individual, group, or entity engaging with the plan (Fan [0130] dynamically update and present tour route; [0136] customized tour map presented to UE users in a group or sub-group; [0150] dynamic map displayed to a tour group; [0156] display a geo map of an event to other group members; [0240] tour route and itinerary).
Claim 53:
Fan discloses all the elements of claim 50, as shown above. Additionally, Fan discloses:
wherein individual, group, or entity may exercise access controls with respect to at least one individual, group, or entity with respect to plan sharing or shared engagement (Fan [0139] tour guide may accept a request by two adults to use their own smart phones to access the tour).
Claim 54:
Fan discloses all the elements of claim 49, as shown above. Additionally, Fan discloses:
notifying at least one individual, group, or entity of actual or potential spatial proximity between at least one element of the plan and the at least one individual, group, or entity (Fan [0130] dynamically update and present tour route; [0136] customized tour map presented to UE users in a group or sub-group; [0150] dynamic map displayed to a tour group; [0156] display a geo map of an even to other group members; [0240] tour route and itinerary).
Claim 55:
Fan discloses all the elements of claim 49, as shown above. Additionally, Fan discloses:
notifying at least one individual, group, or entity that the plan is likely to generate a meaningful experience for the at least one individual, group, or entity (Fan [0131], [0153], [0170], [0233] User Equipment users in a group have a customized tour generated and the users can communicate with each other).
Claim 56:
Fan discloses all the elements of claim 49, as shown above. Additionally, Fan discloses:
enabling the at least one individual, entity, or group to communicate with other individuals (Fan [0131], [0153], [0170], [0233] User Equipment users in a group have a customized tour generated and the users can communicate with each other).
Claim 57:
Fan discloses all the elements of claim 49, as shown above. Additionally, Fan discloses:
enabling the at least one individual, entity, or group to communicate with at least one other individual, group, or entity engaging with at least one element of the plan (Fan [0131], [0153], [0170], [0233] User Equipment users in a group have a customized tour generated and the users can communicate with each other).
Claim 58:
Fan discloses all the elements of claim 49, as shown above. Additionally, Fan discloses:
enabling spatially separated individuals, entities, or groups to collectively agree on a method of regaining spatial or temporal proximity (Fan [0130] dynamically update and present tour route; [0136] customized tour map presented to UE users in a group or sub-group; [0150] dynamic map displayed to a tour group; [0156] display a geo map of an even to other group members; [0240] tour route and itinerary).
Claim 59:
Fan discloses all the elements of claim 49, as shown above. Additionally, Fan discloses:
uploading information derived from the engagement with at least one element of the plan to a communication platform (Fan [0131], [0153], [0170], [0233] User Equipment users in a group have a customized tour generated and the users can communicate with each other; [0219] communication platform allows UE to communicate).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byron in view of Acebo et al. (U.S. 6023679 A), hereinafter Acebo.
Claim 36:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 33, as shown above. However, Byron does not disclose the following limitation, but Acebo does:
differentiating the one or more items between those that are made before the arrival of and after the arrival of one or more individuals, groups, or entities at locations (Acebo (Col. 1 Lines 16-20) in the travel industry discounts are offered for services purchased in advance and discounts rates are offered for the advanced booking of travel package including airfare, hotel, and ground transportation).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the time and package discounts as taught by Acebo in the system of Byron to incentivize users to book in advance and ensure availability of travel items that best match their sentiments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include time and package discounts as taught by Acebo in the system of Byron, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of travel planning, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Byron’s system with the improved functionality to reduce the likelihood the best matching travel items in a recommended itinerary are available for a traveler by incentivizing the user to book their entire itinerary early, as suggested by Acebo (Acebo (Col. 1 Lines 20-23)).
Claim 37:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 33, as shown above. However, Byron does not disclose the following limitation, but Acebo does:
wherein applicable pricing depends in part on whether the one or more items are undertaken before the arrival of or after the arrival of one or more individuals, groups, or entities at locations (Acebo (Col. 1 Lines 16-20) in the travel industry discounts are offered for services purchased in advance and discounts rates are offered for the advanced booking of travel package including airfare, hotel, and ground transportation).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Acebo in the system of Byron for the same reasons discussed above in claim 36.
Claim 38:
Byron discloses all the elements of claim 33, as shown above. However, Byron does not disclose the following limitation, but Acebo does:
wherein applicable pricing depends in part on the number of the one or more items having already been processed (Acebo (Col. 1 Lines 16-20) in the travel industry discounts are offered for services purchased in advance and discounts rates are offered for the advanced booking of travel package including airfare, hotel, and ground transportation).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Acebo in the system of Byron for the same reasons discussed above in claim 36.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628