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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Method claims 16-21 depend from system claim 15 and therefore should recite “The system of claim XX”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a logical environment system”, “a spatial environment system”, and “a rendering environment system”, in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-21 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.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-7 are drawn to a product, claims 8-14 are drawn to a method, and claims 15-21 are drawn to a system which are one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites a computer product, a method, and/or a system comprising the following:
…….. generate …….comprising a plurality of logically related, rule based junctions through which one or more entities traverse;
……map one or more spatial constraints upon each logical relation between each of the one or more of the plurality of junctions; and
…….adapted to move the one or more entities through the …..subject to the corresponding spatial constraints and …..the results of the movement of the one or more entities…..
These steps amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing human mental activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 recite, in part, wherein at least one rule comprising a part of a rule based junction is a default rule.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 recite, in part, wherein at least one rule comprising a part of a rule based junction is defined by a user of the computer product.
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 recite, in part, wherein a logical structure of each of the one or more entities is defined by a user of the computer product.
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 recite, in part, wherein at least one of the spatial is defined by a user of the computer product.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 recite, in part, wherein each of the plurality of rule based junctions comprises an associated number of slots each adapted for holding a single entity.
Dependent claims 7, 14, and 21 recite, in part, wherein the number of slots associated with a single junction may be dynamically updated.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 17-21 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 8, and 16 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Independent Claim 1 recites a logical environment system, a spatial environment system, a rendering environment system, a logical network, visually display, and a graphical user interface. The specification defines a logical environment system as adapted to generate a logical network comprising a plurality of logically related, rule based junctions through which one or more entities traverse (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0015), a spatial environment system as adapted to map one or more spatial constraints upon each logical relation between each of the one or more of the plurality of junctions (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0015), a rendering environment system as adapted to move the one or more entities through the logical network subject to the corresponding spatial constraints (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0015), a logical network as detailing the flow of people through a vaccine site may have a node representing a check-in desk with the next node after check-in representing a waiting room (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0038), visually display as the results of the movement of the one or more entities via a graphical user interface (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0015), and a graphical user interface as a graphical user interface (GUI) window such as window 200 displayed on a display device 608 of the computing system (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0063). The use of the a logical environment system, a spatial environment system, a rendering environment system, a logical network, visually display, and a graphical user interface are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Independent Claim 8 recites a logical network, visually display, and a graphical user interface. The specification defines a logical network as detailing the flow of people through a vaccine site may have a node representing a check-in desk with the next node after check-in representing a waiting room (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0038), visually display as the results of the movement of the one or more entities via a graphical user interface (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0015), and a graphical user interface as a graphical user interface (GUI) window such as window 200 displayed on a display device 608 of the computing system (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0063). The use of a logical network, visually display, and a graphical user interface are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Independent Claim 15 recites a user input device, a memory, a non-transitory data processor-readable medium, a data processor, display device, user interface management instructions embodied in data processor-executable code, a user interface management engine, a logical network, visually displaying and a graphical user interface. The specification defines a user input device as a keyboard, mouse, a camera and/or other interface systems, (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0023), a memory as magnetic storage systems (e.g., a hard disk drive), optical storage systems, and/or semiconductor memory systems, such as RAM systems, Read Only Memory (ROM) systems, Single Data Rate Random Access Memory (SDR-RAM), Double Data Rate Random Access Memory (DDR-RAM), and/or Programmable Read Only Memory (PROM) (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0030), a non-transitory data processor-readable medium as a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, and/or associated caches and servers) that stores the one or more sets of instructions (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0094), a data processor as personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, cellular telephones, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0095), display device as a video/graphical display unit (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT)) (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0092), user interface management instructions embodied in data processor-executable code as The computer readable media stores code for carrying out subprocesses for carrying out the methods (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0094), a user interface management engine as a display of an environmental simulation according to predefined rules, using an electronic device (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0088), a logical network as detailing the flow of people through a vaccine site may have a node representing a check-in desk with the next node after check-in representing a waiting room (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0038), visually displaying as the results of the movement of the one or more entities via a graphical user interface (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0015) and a graphical user interface a graphical user interface (GUI) window such as window 200 displayed on a display device 608 of the computing system (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0063). The use of a user input device, a memory, a non-transitory data processor-readable medium, a data processor, display device, user interface management instructions embodied in data processor-executable code, a user interface management engine, a logical network, visually displaying and a graphical user interface are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 recite, in part, wherein at least one rule comprising a part of a rule based junction is a default rule. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17, recites in part, wherein at least one rule comprising a part of a rule based junction is defined by a user of the computer product. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18, recites in part, wherein a logical structure of each of the one or more entities is defined by a user of the computer product. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 recites, in part, wherein at least one of the spatial is defined by a user of the computer product. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 recites, in part, wherein each of the plurality of rule based junctions comprises an associated number of slots each adapted for holding a single entity. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Dependent claims 7, 14, and 21, recites in part, wherein the number of slots associated with a single junction may be dynamically updated. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Independent Claim 1 recites a logical environment system, a spatial environment system, a rendering environment system, a logical network, visually display, and a graphical user interface. Independent Claim 8 recites a logical network, visually display, and a graphical user interface. Independent Claim 15 recites a user input device, a memory, a non-transitory data processor-readable medium, a data processor, display device, user interface management instructions embodied in data processor-executable code, a user interface management engine, a logical network, visually displaying and a graphical user interface. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as use of the graphical user interface, the logical network, the data processor, the memory, the user input device, the non-transitory data processor-readable medium to store and process data, use of a logical environment system, a spatial environment system, and a rendering environment system to analyze data, and use of the visual display to display data. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional 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)” (Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Dependent claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 recite, in part, the computer product. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-21 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see Conclusion) failed to teach the following limitations:
a logical environment system adapted to generate a logical network comprising a plurality of logically related, rule based junctions through which one or more entities traverse;
a spatial environment system adapted to map one or more spatial constraints upon each logical relation between each of the one or more of the plurality of junctions; and
a rendering environment system adapted to move the one or more entities through the logical network subject to the corresponding spatial constraints and to visually display the results of the movement of the one or more entities via a graphical user interface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LOCATION ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD BASED ON TOPOLOGY CONSTRAINTS (US 20110082643 A1) teaches enhanced location sensing based on topology constraints. A potential position value and a corresponding probability value with respect to an observed position data of an object within a structure can be calculated utilizing a normal probability distribution function. Thereafter, an optimal route between adjacent observed time periods may be calculated utilizing a heuristic search algorithm. The potential position value and the optimal route can be calculated by accessing a pre-installed topology data associated with the structure. An optimization problem can then be solved to refine the observed position data. The position between a pair of observed time periods can be interpolated and the position of the object before a next observed time can be predicted by interpolation based on the spatial constraints.
METHOD FOR CREATING A MAP RELATING TO LOCATION-RELATED DATA ON THE PROBABILITY OF FUTURE MOVEMENT OF A PERSON (US 20120232795 A1) teaches creating a map relating to location-related data on the likelihood of the future movement of a person in a spatial environment, such as a building, forest, tunnel system or public place, and in particular a shopping center, airport or train station. In the method according to the invention, at least one person is supplied with one or more sensors (e.g. inertial sensors, rotation rate sensors, optical sensors) for odometrical measurement (odometry) (e.g. attached to a shoe), wherein the odometry has errors due to inherent measurement inaccuracies of the sensor(s) (e.g. angle deviations, length deviations). The at least one person moves by foot through the spatial environment. Information regarding the pedestrian step lengths and/or pedestrian step direction and/or orientation of the sensor or the person (called odometry information Z.sup.u) is determined from the measurement signals of the sensor(s). Based on said odometry information, a map is created using a Bayesian estimator (e.g. particle filter, Rao-Blackwellized particle filter, Kalman filter, Mone-Cario hypothesis filter or combined forms of such filters), the state-variable space thereof (e.g. hypothetical space of the particle of a particle filter) comprising both the current pedestrian step (pedestrian step length and optionally movement direction change as well) of the person U, odometry errors E (e.g. drift parameters with respect to the determined pedestrian step lengths and/or pedestrian step direction and/or orientation of the sensor or the person) and also the location-related data on the probabilities of the future movement of the person.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30, First Friday Off.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682