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 . The following is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected below.
Objection
The final limitation of the independent claims recites, “wherein the analysis target.” Examiner recommends adding “each of the targets” based on the recitation of “targets” in the claim. Examiner recommends changing “the type” to “a type.”
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Objections to Claims 9 are withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues, “By implementing the road network operation management method on the terminal, unified operation and management of data have been achieved, thereby eliminating data barriers in informationization. By further abstracting and decomposing business processes, task configuration generation has been achieved, ensuring the flexibility of road network operation management and service platform task expansion. Further, the flexible expansion of tasks based on configuration has realized business evolution and accumulation of the platform. At the same time, task configuration schemes can also be accumulated, evolved and shared to help achieve rapid deployment and evolution of similar tasks. The amended claim 1 can solve practical problems and enhance the rapid deployment and evolution of tasks of road network management on terminals.”
Examiner responds the terminal is being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Applicant argues the final limitation is not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner first notes the final limitation is a descriptive concept and does not refer to the rest of the claim, and thus is part of mental processes. However, it also may be considered a mathematical relationship.
Applicant argues “rendering” and “generating visual elements” cannot be performed in the human mind and requires hardware devices.
Examiner responds “rendering” and “generating visual elements” are broadly recited and do not require being displayed and can be performed mentally.
Applicant argues, “Thus, the amended claim 1 provides a specific sequence of technical steps implemented through hardware components, which solves practical problems, eliminates data barriers in informatization, achieves decoupling between road network traffic data and platform business functions, significantly improves the efficiency of data processing, and enhances the overall performance of road network operation management.”
Examiner responds each of the steps can be performed as part of a mental process. Each of the additional elements are used as tools to implement the abstract idea.
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 1-7 and 9-19 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Based on a facial reading of the claim elements, Claims 1-7 and 9-19 fall within a statutory class of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, the claims recite an abstract idea. Claims 1-7 and 9-19 include limitations directed to using rules to generate visual elements corresponding to analysis targets, including the steps:
Determining analysis targets on a road network to be managed, and extracting metadata...
Receiving configured data processing rules, and performing a query operation...
Receiving configured business processing rules, preprocessing the task data...
Rendering based on the visual data...Generating visual elements...
Rendering based on the visual data corresponding to the analysis targets on the road network to be managed, and generating visual elements corresponding to the analysis targets on the road network to be managed;
wherein the analysis target is
PNG
media_image1.png
25
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
... (Examiner notes this is a descriptive concept and does not refer to the rest of the claim).
which is an abstract idea reasonably categorized as
Mental processes (ie. gathering data and processing it with algorithmic steps in order to generate a result). Examiner notes each of the steps above can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Mathematical concept- because the analysis target is also a mathematical relationship or formula.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 19, and 21 include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include device, module, terminal, processor, memory; communication bus, non-transitory computer- readable storage medium; computer program When considered in view of the claim as a whole, Examiner submits that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f).
In Claim 2 and 13-15 the superimposing the dynamic layer elements through a GIS engine, the integrating the chart set elements into a pre-generated management task analysis page, and displaying a visual page, fail to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information. Because the claimed display functions are broadly claimed and are directed to the basic functions of display technology, the claims do not improve the functioning of the display and do not improve the technical field of visualization.
In Claim 4-5, with respect to the sending/inputting task/visual data for storing in a database - this limitation is considered insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1, 19, and 21 include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include device, module, terminal, processor, memory; communication bus, non-transitory computer- readable storage medium; computer program When considered in view of the claim as a whole, Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because these elements are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or recite generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
As stated above in Claims 2 and 13-15 the broad display elements fails to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information
In Claim 4-5, with respect to the sending/inputting task/visual data for storing in a database - this limitation is considered Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity based on MPEP 2106.05(d)
II. ELEMENTS THAT THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AS WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY IN PARTICULAR FIELDS
i. 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. 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;
The remaining dependent claims do not include additional elements above and beyond claims 1, 19.
Accordingly, Claims 1-7, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
273
982
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT ROSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-1555. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM E.S.T..
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, Rutao Wu, can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Scott Ross/
Examiner - Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights