Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a First Office Action on the merits in reply to application number 18/025,540 filed on 03/09/2023. The preliminary amendment filed on 03/09/2023 has been entered, which amends claims 5-6, 10, 12, and 14-17 and cancels claim 21.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 365 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 05/18/2023 has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in 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. In the instant application, these claim limitations are: a predictor (claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11, and 15-16) a generator (claims 1, 4, 10-11, and 16-17), and an outputter (claims 1 and 11). However, the Examiner has reviewed the Specification and notes that the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of these limitation and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions corresponding to these means-plus-function limitations. Accordingly, §112(a) and §112(b) rejections are applied to claims 1-10 in the instant office action to address these deficiencies.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing history and purpose of the written description requirement).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The claims recite the following means-plus-function limitations: a predictor (claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11, and 15-16) a generator (claims 1, 4, 10-11, and 16-17), and an outputter (claims 1 and 11). However, the written description fails to specifically disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure to perform the function corresponding to each of these limitations. For example, paragraphs 8-9, 13-14, 22-23, 29-30, and 32 of the Specification describe functions performed by the generator, but fail to describe any specific corresponding structure by which the generator is embodied. Similarly rationale is applicable to the predictor and outputter. Accordingly, the lack of specific structure in the Specification for performing the claim functions of the predictor, generator, and outputter results in a finding that the written description fails to satisfy §112(a) such that there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. See Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, and 15-17 fail to satisfy the written description requirement of §112(a) because there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. See Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
Claims 2-17 depend from one or more of the above-noted claims and inherit their §112(a) deficiencies as well.
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 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-17: The claims recite the following means-plus-function limitations: a predictor (claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11, and 15-16) a generator (claims 1, 4, 10-11, and 16-17), and an outputter (claims 1 and 11), each being configured to perform one or more claim functions, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the specific corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure to the functions corresponding to these elements. Applicant’s Specification refers to the units and their functions, but fails to describe the structure for performing the functions of the units.
If the predictor, generator, and outputter are intended as being computer-implemented (e.g., computer program, see. par. 32 of Spec.), it is noted that, for computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitations, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP 2181.
In this instance, Specification is silent regarding any particular structure by which the predictor, generator, and outputter are embodied. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-17 depend from one or more of the above-noted claims, but fail to cure the §112(b) deficiencies of their parent claim(s) and therefore claims 2-17 also inherit the §112(b) deficiencies of their respective parent claim(s).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed system (claims 1-17) and methods (claims 18-20) and are each directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine and processes). Accordingly, claims 1-20 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (a person’s touring plan, e.g., a trip/travel itinerary) and steps that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). The limitations reciting the abstract idea, as set forth in independent claim 1 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are presented in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
a predictor configured to calculate prediction values related to multiple sites (This step describes activity for managing personal behavior such as for calculating arrival times (ETA) or departure times for visiting the multiple sites, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
a generator configured to generate a touring plan based on the prediction values, the touring plan being a plan for a touring person to tour two or more sites as touring destinations corresponding to at least some of the multiple sites, and the touring plan being a plan in which an outcome to be expected from touring satisfies a specific condition (This step describes activity for managing personal behavior such as for generating a touring plan, e.g., itinerary, for visiting the multiple sites, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion); and
an outputter configured to output information on the touring plan generated (This step describes activity for managing personal behavior such as for outputting information, e.g., an itinerary, for visiting the multiple sites, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion. In addition, the “output” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution output activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network));
wherein the outcome includes an outcome to result from an activity of the touring person in each touring destination of the touring destinations (This limitation adds further detail to the “generate” step, which is also considered activity for managing personal behavior such as for describing a goal or expectation for the person in relation to the touring plan, e.g., a desired thing to see, an amount of time desired to be spent at a site or the like, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion), and
wherein the generator generates, as the touring plan, a touring plan showing at least one of a touring order or a touring time for the two or more sites (This step describes activity for managing personal behavior such as for generating a touring plan that includes an itinerary for visiting the multiple sites, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
Independent claim 18 recites limitations similar to the limitations discussed above and has been determined to recite the same abstract idea(s) as claim 1.
Independent claim 19 recites limitations similar to those discussed above and is therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea as claims 1/18, however claim 19 includes the following limitations that are not recited by claims 1/18, but which are further addressed below:
the outcome varying depending on a state of the each touring destination, and the activity of the touring person including multiple types of activities that are performable in a corresponding site to the each touring destination of the touring destinations (These details concerning the “outcome” describe activity for managing personal behavior such as for narrowing the outcome on the basis of planned activities tied to the touring plan, and furthermore this activity, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion),
wherein the prediction values include a prediction value related to the state of each site of the multiple sites at each time point of multiple time points, wherein at least one site of the multiple sites is a business hub of a business operator (These two “wherein” statements concerning the “prediction values” and “at least one site” describe activity for managing personal behavior such as for further describing the nature of the sites tied to the touring plan, and furthermore activity, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion),
wherein the calculating of the prediction values includes: collecting report data related to a reception environment of the business operator (This step describes activity for managing personal behavior such as for collecting information related to a business in relation to the touring plan, e.g., merchant description, restaurant menu, operating hours, or the like and furthermore this activity, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion. In addition, the “collecting” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)); and
based on the report data, calculating, as a prediction value related to the state of the business hub, a value representing a degree of possibility that the business operator is in a specific reception environment when the touring person visits the business hub at a corresponding time point (This step describes activity for managing personal behavior such as for calculating likelihood of a business having certain characteristics, and furthermore this activity, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion),
wherein the generating includes generating, as the touring plan to be output, a touring plan having an overall outcome value maximized or one or more touring plans having the overall outcome value equal to or greater than a standard when an individual outcome value is calculated for every combination of a site and a time point based on the prediction values (This “wherein” statement adds detail to the “generating,” which is considered further activity for managing personal behavior such as for ensuring the touring plan meets an overall outcome value, and furthermore is interpreted as activity that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion),
wherein the individual outcome value is an outcome to be expected when the touring person performs one type of activity of the multiple types of activities in the corresponding site at the corresponding time point (This “wherein” statement adds detail to the outcome value in relation to activities to be performed, which is considered further activity for managing personal behavior such as for tying an outcome value to preferred activity types of a person, and furthermore is interpreted as activity that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion),
wherein the overall outcome value is calculated based on individual outcome values, each of which is based on the touring time and the one type of activity for a corresponding site of the two or more sites corresponding to the touring destinations (This “wherein” statement adds detail related to the outcome value calculation, which is considered further activity for managing personal behavior such as for using activity type and time information when calculating the outcome value, and furthermore is interpreted as activity that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion), and
wherein the overall outcome value is calculated by integrating the individual outcome values corresponding to the outcomes to be expected from the touring for the respective two or more sites when the touring is performed for the each site of the two or more sites in accordance with the touring plan and an activity of a type conforming to the touring plan is performed in the each site (This “wherein” statement adds detail to the overall outcome calculation, which is considered further activity for managing personal behavior such as for incorporating the individual outcome values tied to two or more sits when calculating the overall outcome value, and furthermore is interpreted as activity that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1/18/19 include additional elements directed to a predictor, a generator, and outputter, and computer-implemented. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, even if the output step is evaluated as an additional element, this activity at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claims 1/18/19 include additional elements directed to a predictor, a generator, and outputter, and computer-implemented. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea (See, e.g., Spec. at pars. 32-33, 40, 48-49, and Fig. 2, describing elements of a generic computer for implementing the invention), which is similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, even if the output step is evaluated as an additional element, this activity at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, and such extra-solution activities have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea, as noted by the CAFC with respect to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See also, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-17 and 20 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and have been determined to recite further steps/details that also fall under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (a person’s touring plan, e.g., a trip/travel itinerary) and activity that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). The dependent claims do not require any additional elements beyond the same generic computing elements relied on to implement the independent claims, which have been addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims and which is incorporated herein as well. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are 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 generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 12-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over Liu et al. (US 2019/0056233, hereinafter “Liu”).
Claims 1/18: As per claim 1, Liu teaches a planning system (par. 29 and Fig. 1: multi-modal route planning system) comprising:
a predictor configured to calculate prediction values related to multiple sites (pars. 20, 37, 45: e.g., calculate average travel times over various legs within the network, travel time associated with specific time periods, and other time-variable costs associated with the nodes and transit arcs in the planning graph; trip objectives such as number of companions, monetary budget, attractions or types of attractions or places to visit, and traveling dates; optimize the trip plan including hotel location, daily routes, and daily schedules subject to various constraints such as total trip cost (of which monetary expense may be one element), expected weather conditions, maximum visiting time and staying time for each attraction, and range of starting and ending time for each day, the number of attractions or places; trip optimal planning (TOP) service using a front-end website or server 30 accessible via a network connection from a user device 31. Website/server 30 interacts with cloud computing resources 32 in a configuration that performs multi-modal trip planning);
a generator configured to generate a touring plan based on the prediction values, the touring plan being a plan for a touring person to tour two or more sites as touring destinations corresponding to at least some of the multiple sites, and the touring plan being a plan in which an outcome to be expected from touring satisfies a specific condition (pars. 11, 19, 22-24, 35, 37, 41-45, and Fig. 6: e.g., user initiates a trip planning request identifying nodes 36 and 37 as desired starting and ending locations, a modified planning graph 45 as shown in FIG. 4 is generated by culling (i.e., removing) irrelevant nodes and arcs from primary planning graph; route or trip has been generated and selected by a user (e.g., travel times, directions, places to stay, schedule for visiting attractions, budget); specifies trip objectives such as number of companions, monetary budget, attractions or types of attractions or places to visit, and traveling dates. Based on the objectives and preferences provided, the TOP system uses appropriate algorithms to find the most convenient location to stay, recommended routes, transportation modes, and times of indoor or outdoor activities or attractions during the trip based on certain constraints, such as weather conditions, a date range for a trip, visiting hours, and starting and ending locations; optimize the trip plan including hotel location, daily routes, and daily schedules subject to various constraints such as total trip cost (of which monetary expense may be one element), expected weather conditions, maximum visiting time and staying time for each attraction, and range of starting and ending time for each day, the number of attractions or places to visit, and the days to stay; trip optimal planning (TOP) service using a front-end website or server 30 accessible via a network connection from a user device 31. Website/ server 30 interacts with cloud computing resources 32 in a configuration that performs multi-modal trip planning); and
an outputter configured to output information on the touring plan generated (pars. 11, 30, 37, 43, 49, and Fig. 6: e.g., user interface presents at least one optimized visiting plan to a user; Computing device 12 may also provide outputs to HMI 18, e.g., to display a route or routes or to provide real-time guidance instructions; trip optimal planning (TOP) service using a front-end website or server 30 accessible via a network connection from a user device 31. Website/ server 30 interacts with cloud computing resources 32 in a configuration that performs multi-modal trip planning),
wherein the outcome includes an outcome to result from an activity of the touring person in each touring destination of the touring destinations (pars. 11, 42, 45, and 49: e.g., planning graph and the user interface configured to modify the planning graph according to the user objectives and the customized user preferences; plurality of user objectives within the trip destinations and to customize a plurality of user preferences for a multi-modal and multi-day trip, and the objectives/preferences are stored in block 52. Customized user preferences and a history of user activity (e.g., previous trip objectives and results) may be stored in a user profile; optimizer 55 compiles a plurality of permutations of visiting plans which are stored in block 57, wherein each permutation satisfies the specified user objectives including routing between a plurality of trip destinations/waypoints available within modified planning graph; planning graph for chains of nodes and arcs that meet the user's trip objectives. Some choices within the permutations may be forced when the user objectives specify a certain requirement, such as visiting a certain place or attraction on a certain day or time), and
wherein the generator generates, as the touring plan, a touring plan showing at least one of a touring order or a touring time for the two or more sites (pars. 35 and 45: e.g., a route or trip has been generated and selected by a user (e.g., travel times, directions, places to stay, schedule for visiting attractions, budget), the resulting route attributes 22 are stored. Attributes 22 may describe waypoints between different travel segments, opportunities for using service facilities, and other helpful data. As discussed further below, waypoints and destinations may be represented as “nodes” and segments may be represented as “transit arcs” in a planning graph; optimize the trip plan including hotel location, daily routes, and daily schedules subject to various constraints such as total trip cost (of which monetary expense may be one element), expected weather conditions, maximum visiting time and staying time for each attraction, and range of starting and ending time for each day).
Claim 18 is directed to a method for performing substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 1 and discussed above. Liu teaches a method for performing the limitations discussed above (pars. 17, 48, and Fig. 6: method of the invention), and claim 18 is therefore rejected using the same reference and for substantially the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim 2: Liu further teaches wherein at least one site of the multiple sites is a distribution hub for products (par. 6: As used herein, “attractions” refers to any desired destinations including, but not limited to, recreational or cultural sites for tourists and business sites (e.g., commercial, medical, educational, or governmental) for business users (e.g., salespersons) or for any other users [wherein commercial sites such as for tourists are sites that sell products, i.e., they are distribution hubs for products]), and wherein the prediction values include at least one of a prediction value of a parameter related to distribution of the products in the distribution hub or a prediction value of a parameter related to a distribution operator (pars. 6 and 18: estimating costs associated with elements in a planning graph [Since the places may be commercial business sites, the estimated costs associated with those places in the planning graph are prediction values related to the distribution operator, e.g., merchant or salesperson]).
Claim 3: Liu further teaches wherein the outcome varies depending on a state of the each touring destination, and wherein the prediction values include a prediction value related to the state of each site of the multiple sites at each time point of multiple time points (pars. 20, 28, 33, 37, and 45: forecast travel time (including traffic or weather information which may be obtained from other providers such as weather forecasting) and other attributes (i.e., costs) for using respective parts of the planning graph; Optimization for trip plan may preferably include the hotel location, daily routes, and departure and arrival times which are determined subject to various constraints such as budget, total trip cost, weather conditions, visiting time and waiting time for each attraction; Based on the objectives and preferences provided, the TOP system uses appropriate algorithms to find the most convenient location to stay, recommended routes, transportation modes, and times of indoor or outdoor activities or attractions during the trip based on certain constraints, such as weather conditions, a date range for a trip, visiting hours, and starting and ending locations).
Claim 4: Li further teaches wherein the generator generates the touring plan based on an individual outcome value for every combination of a site and a time point, the individual outcome value being calculated based on the prediction values, and wherein the individual outcome value represents an amount of the outcome to be expected from the activity of the touring person at a corresponding site and a corresponding time point (pars. 11, 42-46, and 49: The optimizer compiles a plurality of permutations of visiting plans within the modified planning graph which satisfy the specified user objectives including routing to a plurality of trip destinations. The optimizer compares the permutations using mixed integer programming or constraint programming to identify at least one optimized visiting plan having a lowest aggregate associated cost (e.g., shortest travel time) that also satisfies a plurality of constraints determined by the customizable user preferences. Then the user interface presents at least one optimized visiting plan to a user; permutations of visiting plans within the modified planning graph that satisfy the trip objectives are compiled. In step 65, mixed integer programming is used to compare the aggregate costs of all the permutated visiting plans in order to identify optimized plans, and any visiting plans not within the user constraints are eliminated from consideration in step 66. In step 67, the identified plans are presented to the user).
Claim 5: Liu further teaches wherein the predictor is configured to: collect a performance value of a parameter related to the state; and calculate the prediction values based on the performance value collected (pars. 22-24, 33, and 37-39: e.g., With the multi-modal transportation graph, the invention solves for the shortest paths between public transit nodes using different cost metrics, such as travel time, number of transfers, walking distance, reliability, comfortability, travel expense, or using a combination of the cost metrics; user objectives and/or user preferences can either increase or decrease the weighting (i.e., costs) for certain nodes or arcs or may force certain choices within a specific trip. For example, the user could specify the type of transport they are willing to take (e.g., subway only, or subway and shared vehicles), what attractions they would like to visit, waypoints along the route (i.e., locations of friends to be picked up), their optimization preferences (e g, minimize time, number of days, or some combination of preferences), how far they are willing to walk or bike, or if they will not drive if the weather is bad; Parameters 21 may include user preferences for route generation and/or selection, such as choose fastest, choose most economical, relative weighting factors to be given to optimizing variables; estimates of future conditions affecting travel routing).
Claim 6: Liu further teaches wherein at least one site of the multiple sites is a business hub of a business operator (par. 6: As used herein, “attractions” refers to any desired destinations including, but not limited to, recreational or cultural sites for tourists and business sites (e.g., commercial, medical, educational, or governmental) for business users (e.g., salespersons) or for any other users [wherein commercial sites are a business hub of a business operator]), and wherein the prediction values include, for the each time point, a prediction value related to a reception environment of the business operator when the touring person visits the business hub at the corresponding time point (pars. 20, 28, 33, 37, 39, and 45: describing estimated/predicted/forecasted values such as traffic, weather, costs, etc. calculated and evaluated for the places to be visited and time/date of visit to planning the trip – e.g., forecast travel time (including traffic or weather information which may be obtained from other providers such as weather forecasting) and other attributes (i.e., costs) for using respective parts of the planning graph; Optimization for trip plan may preferably include the hotel location, daily routes, and departure and arrival times which are determined subject to various constraints such as budget, total trip cost, weather conditions, visiting time and waiting time for each attraction; each cost varies with time so that future values must be tabulated or estimated based on historic data ).
Claim 7: Liu further teaches wherein the prediction value related to the reception environment includes a prediction value related to an event in which the salesperson succeeds a meeting with a person with a specific attribute in the business operator when the touring person visits the business hub at the corresponding time point (pars. 6, 20, 39, and 45: describing commercial prediction related to places visited that are commercial in nature, which include business users such as salespersons that meet with the person visiting the places, i.e., a touring person patronizing a commercial business hub – e.g., “attractions” refers to any desired destinations including, but not limited to, recreational or cultural sites for tourists and business sites (e.g., commercial, medical, educational, or governmental) for business users (e.g., salespersons) or for any other users; forecast time (including traffic or weather information which may be obtained from other providers such as weather forecasting) and other attributes (i.e., costs) for using respective parts of the planning graph; each cost varies with time so that future values must be tabulated or estimated based on historic data; expected weather conditions, maximum visiting time and staying time for each attraction, and range of starting and ending time for each day, the number of attractions or places to visit, and the days to stay).
Claim 10: Liu further teaches wherein the activity of the touring person includes multiple types of activities that are performable in a corresponding site to the each touring destination, wherein the touring plan further shows a type of activity to be performed by the touring person in the corresponding site to the each touring destination, and wherein the generator generates the touring plan based on an outcome to be expected for every combination of a site, the time point, and/or the type of activity (pars. 1, 6-7, 37, and 45: destinations including, but not limited to, recreational or cultural sites for tourists and business sites; system can recommend both routes and appropriate indoor and outdoor activities based on weather and air quality conditions; system uses appropriate algorithms to find the most convenient location to stay, recommended routes, transportation modes,