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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The Office Action, on page 2, rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 if it is directed to nothing more than a patent for an abstract concept itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354-55 (2014). But Alice acknowledges that a claim is "not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept" and expressly states that "applications of such concepts to a new and useful end" are permissible subject matter under § 101. Id. at 2354. A claim related to an abstract concept is patentable if the claim possesses an "'inventive concept' - i.e., an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself."' Id at 2355 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed 2d 321, 327 (2012)).
The Office has implemented the framework set forth in Mayo and Alice for determining subject matter eligibility. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106(III). Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test is to determine whether the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter).Id § 2106.03 (II). If so, Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test is to determine whether the claim, as a whole, is "directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea." Id § 2106.04(11).
Claims taken as a whole that are not directed to one of these judicial exceptions is patent eligible and no further analysis is needed. See id § 2106(11I). Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test requires an examiner to analyze whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception. See id. § 2106.05(II). Claims taken as a whole that satisfy the inquiry of Step 2B are also patent eligible. See id. § 2106(III).
In this case, the Applicant submits that claims 1-20 qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. First, the Applicant submits that claims 1-20 are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A. Second, the Applicant submits that, even if claims 1-20 are interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea-which the Applicant does not concede-each of the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 1-20 satisfy the inquiry of Step 2A because they are not directed to an abstract idea.
The Applicant submits that independent claims 1 and 12 qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the reason that each of the independent claims 1 and 12, taken as a whole, is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A.
Prong 1
In the rejection of the independent claims 1 and 12, the Office Action, on page 5, asserts "[t]he highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of recommending one or more routes based on cost considerations, and monitoring the routes taken over time in order to improve the route recommendations. This is equivalent to a person giving directions to a driver based on the cost considerations (approximate time, best places to get gas, driver disliking highways), and learning over time the types of routes the driver prefers in order to recommend better ones. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1II), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that 'can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper' to be an abstract idea..." In response, the Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits the following.
As the MPEP explains, "(e)xaminers should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the claimed concept ... and (2) comparing the claimed concept to the concepts previously identified as abstract ideas by the courts to determine if it is similar." MPEP § 2106.04(a). However, "examiners should rely on the concepts identified in the cases, not the 9 judicial descriptors themselves, when determining whether a claimed concept is similar to a concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea." Id. § 2106.04(a)(II). In other words, in the inquiry of Step 2A, it is insufficient to broadly assert that claimed features of the present application are no more than abstract ideas when the claimed features of the present application, taken as a whole, have not been shown to be similar to the concepts in the claims found by the Courts to be abstract.
In this case, the Office Action has not shown how the recited features of independent claims 1 and 12, taken as a whole, are similar to concepts previously identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Rather, referring broadly to the features of independent claims 1 and 12, the Office Action merely concludes that some features of independent claims 1 and 12, are grouped as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity". However, the Applicant submits that the concepts related to one or more features recited in the original independent claims 1 and 12, and the currently pending independent claims 1 and 12 are not similar to patent-ineligible concepts that have been identified by the courts. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Moreover, according to MPEP, "[s]ome claims reciting an abstract idea are not directed to the abstract idea because they also recite additional elements (such as an improvement) demonstrating that the claims as a whole clearly do not seek to tie up the abstract idea." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)(II) (emphasis added). In this case, the amended independent claims 1 and 12 are also not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A because the claims recite improvements to the asserted abstract idea. In particular, the amended independent claim 1 recites, "receive afirst plurality of cost inputs ... receive a second plurality of travel time inputs ... receive a third plurality of user associated inputs ... determine a recommendation of one or more routes based on the first plurality of cost inputs, the second plurality of travel time inputs, and the third plurality of user associated inputs ... display the recommendation of the one or more routes on a user device ... monitor the selection of routes by the user over a predetermined time period... modify the recommendation of the one or more routes" (emphasis added).
The current invention improves the customized route guidance to different users to improve their travel experience. See Applicant's as-filed specification, paragraphs [0038] and [0039] that recites "[t]he navigation system may be configured to receive the list of activities to-do list from the user 106, and provide recommendations of one or more routes to perform the activities based 10 on a plurality of decision parameters. ... The plurality of decision parameters may include, but is not limited to, user preferences, travel time, and travel cost.... Thus, the navigation system may be configured to not only provide directions to the user 106 to go from a source location to a destination location, but also provide recommendation on the complete travel plan, which is personalized to the user 106 ... The navigation system may be configured to monitor the selection of the routes by the user 106 over a predetermined time period, to understand learn the behavior and decision criteria of the user 106 and travel pattern of the user 106. Based on the monitoring of the selection of the routes, the navigation system may be further configured to modify the recommendations of the routes to the user 106, to further improve travel experience of the user 106. The modification includes changing of travel pattern of the user 106 to save more time and cost." (emphasis added).
In addition, the Applicant submits that by broadly referring to the features of independent claims 1 and 12, the Office Action merely alleges that some features of independent claims 1 and 12, are directed towards "Organizing Human Activity." The Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the Office Action has not indicated sufficient evidence to show how one or more features of the independent claims 1 and 12 come under a method of organizing human activity.
For example, the human mind may not receive different data streams (including first plurality of cost inputs, second plurality of travel time inputs, third plurality of user associated inputs) and recommend a route based on such different data streams.
In fact, the claim features "display the recommendation of the one or more routes on a user device ... receive, via the transceiver, a selection of a route, from the one or more routes, by the user responsive to displaying the one or more routes on the user device," (emphasis added), and all other claim features of independent claim 1, have been amended to indicate that said features are not performed by a human mind (emphasis added). Further, the Applicant submits that there are computing elements recited for performing the method steps of the amended independent claim 1, and thus humans cannot interact with each other and through manual means complete each step of the method of the amended independent claim 1. As a non-limiting example, the above-recited steps as recited in the amended independent claim 1 cannot be performed by humans through interaction with each other and through manual means, and would require one or more computing elements. Thus, the steps as recited in the amended independent claim 1 cannot be grouped as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity".
As the MPEP explains, "[t]he Patent and Trademark Office ((PTO') determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction 'in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art'." See MPEP § 2111. Accordingly, the Applicant submits that the above-recited claim features do not fall within the "Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas because they evidently, require specialize equipment to be implemented, as described in the above citations of the Applicant's as-filed specification.
The claimed invention provides a technological solution to a technological problem specific to navigation systems by implementing a complex data processing approach that improves the operation of traditional navigation systems. The claimed system collects multiple disparate data streams (route inputs, travel time inputs, and user-associated inputs), processes this information through sophisticated pattern recognition and similarity analysis, and generates personalized route recommendations that adapt over time based on user selections and comparison with similar users' travel patterns. This technological approach cannot be performed by the human mind with reasonable effort. The ability to simultaneously process large volumes of real-time data (including "real-time resource availability metrics", "real-time access point status data", "real time traffic data", "real time accident and road construction information"), calculate similarity scores across multiple users, identify relevant travel patterns through scoring mechanisms, and continuously modify recommendations based on monitored selections represents a specific implementation that goes beyond mere mental processes or organizing human activity.
Therefore, the claimed features cannot be presumed to be mere organized human activity.
Additionally, one or more features of the independent claims 1 and 12 provide technological improvements in the field of "navigation system". Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that each of the amended independent claims 1 and 12 as a whole is not directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the policy behind the exclusionary principle of generic or fundamental concepts is to prevent preemption of "the basic tools of scientific and technological work." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 133 (2013)). Because the combination of features of the amended independent claims 1 and 12 are not such basic tools, these concepts are not abstract and do not present the risk of preemption that warrants the exclusionary principle underlying an assertion that the amended independent claims 1 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea.
For at least these reasons, the amended independent claims 1 and 12 are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 13-16, 19, and 20 each depend from one of the amended independent claims 1 and 12, and likewise are not directed to an abstract idea for at least the reason of their dependence from a base claim that is not directed to an abstract idea.
Moreover, dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 13-16, 19, and 20 recite additional features that, when considered as a whole with the respective claims from which they depend, are not directed to abstract idea.
The present claims disclose a particular manner of providing route recommendations that improves the functionality of navigation systems by displaying personalized recommendations, monitoring user selections, comparing with similar users' patterns, and adapting recommendations accordingly. This represents a specific improvement to navigation technology that transforms the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, the specialized processing performed by the claimed system addresses technical problems associated with traditional navigation systems identified in the specification, such as the inability to provide personalized route recommendations that adapt based on user behavior and patterns from similar users. The claimed solution provides a technological improvement that enables navigation systems to provide more relevant and personalized route recommendations that improve over time through machine learning processes, which is a concrete technological improvement.
Rejection of claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 is moot in view of their cancellation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As applicant pointed out, claims are construed under a broadest reasonable interpretation standard during examination. Here, the claims recite a mental process (which is different from “certain methods of organizing human activity”) because it involves concepts that can practicably be performed in the human mind (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims recite such mental processes, including “determining a recommendation,” “monitor[ing],” “compar[ing],” “calculate[ing] similarity scores,” “identify[ing],” “provid[ing] score … based on a predefined criteria,” “identify[ing] a relevant travel pattern,” and “provid[ing] the modified recommendation…based on…the identification of the relevant travel pattern.” Each of these elements (and their limitations) can describe a mental process which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, they are directed to an abstract idea judicial exception under Step 2A Prong 1.
Applicant further argues:
“Prong 2
Further, the Office Action, on page 8, states "[t]he highlighted portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The vehicle control system in the body of the claim does not constitute a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, either. It merely performs the process via a processor. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of receiving and recommending are performed by a 'processor' and a 'transceiver', i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application. The receiving steps recited in the claim recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area or navigational data or planned path data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity." In response, the Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits the following.
The Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claim 1, for example, is directed to "[a] platform for recommending route to a user, the platform comprising: a transceiver configured to: receive a first plurality of cost inputs ... receive a second plurality of travel time inputs, receive a third plurality of user associated inputs ... receive supplementary user profile information associated with the user and a plurality of other users; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to: determine a recommendation of one or more routes .. . display the recommendation of the one or more routes on a user device ... receive, via the transceiver, a selection of a route, from the one or more routes ... modify the recommendation of the one or more routes ... provide the modified recommendation of the one or more routes to the user" and recites a particular integration of features into a practical application.
The claimed invention demonstrates an "inventive concept" that transforms the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2B. The specific arrangement of calculating similarity scores between users, identifying users with similarity scores above a threshold, scoring historical travel patterns of similar users, identifying relevant patterns above a predetermined threshold, and using this information to modify route recommendations represents an ordered combination that addresses a technological problem in navigation systems.
The claimed technological solution is not merely the routine or conventional use of computers.
Rather, it employs a specific, multi-step approach for generating and refining route recommendations that goes beyond "well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry." The innovative aspect lies in how the system identifies and utilizes patterns from similar users to improve recommendations, which represents a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known computing components.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 13-16, 19, and 20 each depend from one of the amended independent claims 1 and 12, and recite further features that are particularly integrated into the practical application of the claims from which they depend, as mentioned above.
Rejection of claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 is moot in view of their cancellation.
Thus, in view of the revised guidance set forth by the Office, the Applicant submits that each of the claims 1-5, 8-16, 19, and 20 satisfy the inquiry of step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test, and accordingly each of the claims 1-5, 8-16, 19, and 20 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (whether as part of a car, or a phone, or some other generic device), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Here, the claims recite a “platform” and a “transceiver” which will “display the recommendation…on a user device”, which represent generic computer technology that merely applies the mental process to a computer. Mere displaying of data, recited at a high level of generality, amounts to mere mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Simply put, claims whose inventive concept is a mental process and which merely implement the abstract idea on generic device are ineligible.
Moreover, the claims do not appear to represent an improvement to technology by using user profile information in generating a route recommendation, as prior art has been shown which accomplishes similar goals.
Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
Applicant further argues:
“Claims 1-20 satisfy the inquiry of Step 2B because they recite significantly more than any abstract idea.
Even if the above concepts pertaining to the features recited in independent claim 1, are interpreted as an abstract idea-which the Applicant does not concede-claims 1-20 would still be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Indeed, "claims that integrate [abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature] into an inventive concept are thereby transformed into patent- eligible inventions." MPEP § 2106.05 (citing Alice 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014).
The Applicant submits that the amended independent claims 1 and 12 integrate subject matter into an inventive concept. For example, the amended independent claim 1 recites, in-part:
"[a] platform for recommending route to a user, the platform comprising: a transceiver configured to: receive a first plurality of cost inputs ... receive a second plurality of travel time inputs, receive a third plurality of user associated inputs ... receive supplementary user profile information associated with the user and a plurality of other users; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to: determine a recommendation of one or more routes .. . display the recommendation of the one or more routes on a user device ... receive, via the transceiver, a selection of a route, from the one or more routes ... modify the recommendation of the one or more routes ... provide the modified recommendation of the one or more routes to the user" As the MPEP explains, limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include improvements to a technical field, adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.
See MPEP § 2106.05(A).
In this case, the amended independent claims 1 and 12 recite unconventional techniques that confine the claims to a useful application, and provide improvements to the field of "navigation system", as described above.
Thus, the technological features recited in the amended independent claims 1 and 12 are directed to new and useful solutions to salient problems in the field of "navigation system". Accordingly, the amended independent claims 1 and 12 recite an inventive concept that is significantly more than any abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 13-16, 19, and 20 include additional features directed to further inventive concepts that are significantly more than any abstract idea.
Rejection of claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 is moot in view of their cancellation.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, claims 1-5, 8-16, 19, and 20 also recite "significantly more" than any abstract idea under Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test, and accordingly claims 1-5, 8-16, 19, and 20 qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Accordingly, the Applicant requests that the rejection of claims 1-5, 8-16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routing, conventional activity in the field. The claims simply append well-understood, routing, conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present. Therefore, the claims remain ineligible at Step 2B.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejections
Claims 1-6 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140309929 (Ricci).
Rejection of Claims 1 and 12
In the interest of expediting prosecution, independent claim 1 has been amended to incorporate elements similar or identical to some or all the elements of previously presented dependent claims 5-8. It is respectfully submitted that none of the references, either alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest one or more features as set forth in amended independent claim 1.
For example, the Applicant respectfully submits that none of the references, either alone or in combination, disclose at least the feature "compare the supplementary user profile information of the plurality of other users and the supplementary user profile information of the user; calculate similarity scores of each of the plurality of other users based on the comparison; identify one or more other users, from the plurality of other users, having the calculated similarity scores greater than a threshold value; provide scores to historical travel pattern of the one or more other users based on a predefined criteria, responsive to identifying the one or more other users; identify a relevant travel pattern having a score greater than a predetermined threshold; modify the recommendation of the one or more routes for a next set of trips of the user, based on the monitoring of the selection of the routes by the user and identification of the relevant travel pattern," as recited in the amended independent claim 1. (Emphasis Added).
With respect to dependent claims, the Office Action, on pages 16-21, asserts:
"[r]egarding claim 5, Ricci teaches wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive supplementary user profile information associated with the user and a plurality of other users, and wherein the supplementary user profile information comprises one or more of: home location, office location, interests, income level, credit card spend information, employer information, average time spent in one or more activities, and start and destination locations for one or more trips undertaken by the user and the plurality of other users over a predefined interval of time (see for example paragraph [0260] which describes the types of information stored in a user profile, 'including, but not limited to, multimedia data, preferences data, device identification information, or other types of data ... Information about user and other users' trips is also described in [0522] and [0524]:'the route interrogation module 2004 can determine destinations and other information about routes take by a user or users. ... A pattern recognition module 2012 may receive information from the route interrogation module 2004, or one or more other modules, to determine if patterns surface among multiple routes taken by a user or users. The pattern recognition module 2012 can determine common routes taken by several users during the same times of day or by the same user at the same times of day."17
"Regarding claim 6, Ricci teaches wherein the processor is further configured to compare the supplementary user profile information of the plurality of other users and the supplementary user profile information of the user (see again [0522] and [0524]: "the route interrogation module 2004 can determine destinations and other information about routes take by a user or users. ... A pattern recognition module 2012 may receive information from the route interrogation module 2004, or one or more other modules, to determine if patterns surface among multiple routes taken by a user or users. The pattern recognition module 2012 can determine common routes taken by several users during the same times of day or by the same user at the same times of day.' The pattern recognition module looks for patterns between multiple users which at least includes route starting positions and destinations, reading on compare the supplementary user profile information of the plurality of other users and the supplementary user profile information of the user.)""Regarding claim 7, Ricci does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to: calculate similarity scores of each of the plurality of other users based on the comparison; and identify the one or more other users, from the plurality of other users, having the calculated similarity scores greater than a threshold value (although Ricci teaches storing route information of a plurality of users to determine patterns, he does not explicitly teach calculating similar scores between users.)
However, Waywood teaches similar system wherein the processor is further configured to: calculate similarity scores of each of the plurality of other users based on the comparison; and identify the one or more other users, from the plurality of other users, having the calculated similarity scores greater than a threshold value (see for example [0031], where the system uses attributes of a user to cluster them with similar users, reading on identify the one or more other users:'Patterning engine 108 utilizes the personal attributes to identify one or more patterns of persona I attributes for respective ones of a plurality of users in block 204. Various types of patterns may be learned using cognitive learning algorithms implemented in the cognitive learning module 114. A given user may be clustered with one or more other users having similar personal attributes.' The system may similarly learn route attributes for users (see [0034], 'The above query may be modified to learn other preferred personal attributes for the given user, or to learn route attributes as will be discussed below.'), as described in paragraphs [0035] - [0038]. 'For example, the routing engine 110 may receive input, either direct input from a user via one of the mobile clients 102 or through learning via travel history in data store 106, regarding the sources and destinations for routes taken by different users. The sources and destinations may be used to define a geographic area to limit the search for route options as well as to obtain relevant traffic, weather and other information that may affect generation of personalized routing' [0035]. Then in [0059] the system uses the attribute data to generate a personalized route based on other, similar users:'The process 300 continues with identifying patterns of personal attributes for the given user in step 306 and generating a personalized route for the given user based on matching the patterns of personal attributes with one or more route attributes in step 308.")""Regarding claim 8, Ricci teaches wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive historical travel pattern information of the one or more other users, and wherein the processor is further configured to: provide scores to the historical travel pattern of the one or more other users based on a predefined criteria; identify a relevant travel pattern having score greater than a predetermined threshold; and recommend the change in the travel pattern of the user based on the identification of the relevant travel pattern (see again [0522] and [0524]:"the route interrogation module 2004 can determine destinations and other information about routes take by a user or users.... A pattern recognition module 2012 may receive information from the route interrogation module 2004, or one or more other modules, to determine if patterns surface among multiple routes taken by a user or users. The pattern recognition module 2012 can determine common routes taken by several users during the same times of day or by the same user at the same times of day." The pattern recognition module looks for historical patterns of the user as well as other users, which are then used to recommend a route.)" (Emphasis in Original).
Ricci, in the cited portion and elsewhere, describes modules to generate a best route for a user.
Ricci describes a route interrogation module 2004 that may determine destinations and other information about routes take by a user or users. Ricci describes a pattern recognition module 2012 that determines common routes taken by several users during the same times of day or by the same user at the same times of day. The pattern recognition module 2012 can determine, based on two or more routes, the type of driving habits of the user. The pattern information can include destinations taken or arrived at certain time periods, routes driven on certain days, often-traveled routes, and other patterns. The pattern information may then be stored as preferences data in route preferences 2268. Further, the information may be provided from route preferences 2268 to a route suggestion module 2008 to plan further routes, in step 2424.
Ricci, at best describes, determination of destinations and other information about routes take by a user or users. Ricci further determines if patterns surface among multiple routes taken by a user or users. Ricci further determines common routes taken by several users, which may be used to plan further route. However, Ricci does not teach or suggest calculating similarity score of each other user with the user by comparing user profile information with other users profile information, and identifying/selecting one or more other users having the calculated similarity scores greater than a threshold value, as also acknowledged by the Office Action on page 20. Thus, Ricci does not teach or suggest "...calculate similarity scores of each of the plurality of other users based on the comparison; identify one or more other users, from the plurality of other users, having the calculated similarity scores greater than a threshold value," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Since Ricci does not teach or suggest the aspect of identifying the one or more other users having calculated similarity scores greater than the threshold value, Ricci cannot possibly teach or suggest "provide scores to the historical travel pattern of the one or more other users based on a predefined criteria, responsive to identifying the one or more other users; identify a relevant travel pattern having a score greater than a predetermined threshold; modify the recommendation of the one or more routes for a next set of trips of the user, based on the monitoring of the selection of the routes by the user and identification of the relevant travel pattern," as recited in amended independent claim 1 (emphasis added). Stated another way, since Ricci does not teach or suggest identification of the one or more users (based on similarity score), Ricci cannot possibly teach or suggest providing scores to historical travel pattern of the identified one or more other users, and identify a relevant travel pattern having score greater than a predetermined threshold.
In addition, Ricci merely determines if patterns surface among multiple routes taken by a user or users. Ricci further determines common routes taken by several users, which may be used to plan further route. However, Ricci nowhere discloses providing score to historical travel pattern of other users, identifying a relevant travel pattern having score greater than a predetermined threshold, and recommending route based on the relevant travel pattern. In fact, Ricci is silent on the aspect of providing score to historical travel pattern of other similar users, and using it to recommend the route.
Thus, Ricci does not teach or suggest the above-recited claim elements of amended independent claim 1.
Waywood, in the cited portion and elsewhere, describes engines to generate a best route for a user.
Waywood describes a patterning engine 108 that utilizes the personal attributes to identify one or more patterns of personal attributes for respective ones of a plurality of users. A given user may be clustered with one or more other users having similar personal attributes. Waywood further describes a routing engine 110 that obtains route attributes for one or more routes and/or geographic areas. The routing engine 110 may receive inputs regarding the sources and destinations for routes taken by different users. The sources and destinations may be used to define a geographic area to limit the search for route options as well as to obtain relevant traffic, weather and other information that may affect generation of personalized routing. Waywood further describes that the routing engine 110 matches route attributes with identified patterns of personal attributes for respective users. Specifically, Waywood describes identifying patterns of personal attributes for the given user and generating a personalized route for the given user based on matching of the patterns of personal attributes with one or more route attributes. For example, if the personal attributes indicate that the given user's preferred mode of transportation is by bike, the routing engine 110 may match route attributes which complement biking as the mode of transportation.
Waywood, at best describes, identifying one or more patterns of personal attributes for respective ones of a plurality of users, and clustering the user with one or more other users having similar personal attributes. Waywood further describes matching route attributes with identified patterns of personal attributes for respective users. However, Waywood does not teach or suggest calculating similarity scores of each of a plurality of other users based on the comparison of the user profile and the other users' profile, and identifying selecting one or more other users, from the plurality of other users, having the calculated similarity scores greater than a threshold value, as recited in amended independent claim 1. In fact, Waywood is silent on the aspect of selection of one or more other users from the plurality of other users, let alone disclosing, selection based on the similarity score.
Since Waywood does not teach or suggest the aspect of identifying the one or more other users having calculated similarity scores greater than the threshold value, Waywood cannot possibly teach or suggest "provide scores to the historical travel pattern of the one or more other users based on a predefined criteria, responsive to identifying the one or more other users; identify a relevant travel pattern having a score greater than a predetermined threshold; modify the recommendation of the one or more routes for a next set of trips of the user, based on the monitoring of the selection of the routes by the user and identification of the relevant travel pattern," as recited in amended independent claim 1 (emphasis added).
Thus, Ricci and Waywood, either alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the above- recited claim features of the amended independent claim 1.
Further, the Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claim 12 inter alia features similar to the features recited in the independent claim 1. Therefore, the independent claims 1 and 11 are not taught or suggested by Ricci and Waywood.
Accordingly, in view of the above, the Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claims 1 and 12 are allowable, and that the rejection of the independent claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ricci teaches, among other things, recognizing patterns taken by multiple users in order to recommend a route (see, e.g., paragraphs [0522], [0524], or [0536]). While Ricci does not explicitly teach calculating the similarities, Waywood teaches clustering users based on their personal attributes in order to identify patterns and make recommendations (see, e.g., paragraphs [0031]-[0032] and [0038]). That is, Waywood clusters users based on their similarity and recommends routes to each user based on the preferences of other users in that cluster.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 8-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a machine which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
A platform for recommending route to a user, the platform comprising: a transceiver configured to: receive a first plurality of cost inputs comprising one or more of: real time fuel cost at a plurality of fuel stations on a road network, vehicle fuel efficiency for one or more vehicles associated with the user, vehicle maintenance cost for the one or more vehicles associated with the user, insurance cost for the one or more vehicles associated with the user, driver wages, real time toll information for a plurality of tolls on the road network, travel associated cost, and real time Government tax information;
receive a second plurality of travel time inputs comprising one or more of: real time and historical traffic data on the road network, real time accident and road construction information on the road network, and real time data for events, flights and transit times;
and receive a third plurality of user associated inputs comprising one or more of: habits and preferences of the user, energy preference of the user, travel budget of the user, emotional status of the user, historical travel pattern of the user, purpose of travel, and to-do list of the user;
receive supplementary user profile information associated with the user and a plurality of other users;
and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to: determine a recommendation of one or more routes based on the first plurality of cost inputs, the second plurality of travel time inputs, and the third plurality of user associated inputs;
display the recommendation of the one or more routes on a user device;
receive, via the transceiver, a selection of a route, from the one or more routes, by the user responsive to displaying the one or more routes on the user device;
monitor the selection of routes by the user over a predetermined time period;
compare the supplementary user profile information of the plurality of other users and the supplementary user profile information of the user;
calculate similarity scores of each of the plurality of other users based on the comparison;
identify one or more other users, from the plurality of other users, having the calculated similarity scores greater than a threshold value;
provide scores to historical travel pattern of the one or more other users based on a predefined criteria, responsive to identifying the one or more other users;
identify a relevant travel pattern having a score greater than a predetermined threshold;
modify the recommendation of the one or more routes for a next set of trips of the user, based on the monitoring of the selection of the routes by the user and identification of the relevant travel pattern;
and provide the modified recommendation of the one or more routes to the user, wherein the modified recommendation comprises a recommendation to change a travel pattern of the user and corresponding route, based on the monitored selection of the routes by the user and the identification of the relevant travel pattern.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining a route recommendation based on cost inputs, monitoring for user route selections, comparing user profiles and calculating similarity scores in order to identify similar users, providing travel patterns of similar users, identifying a relevant travel pattern, and modifying the route recommendation to the user in order to provide it to the user. This is equivalent to a person giving directions to a driver based on cost considerations (approximate time, best places to get gas, driver disliking highways), determining that other people they know of have similar preferences, and making new recommendations to the driver based on the preferences of the similar people. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person with knowledge of various route considerations could give directions to a driver based on those considerations. The mere nominal recitation that the transmission is being executed by a platform does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an addi