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
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed 30 March 2026.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 21-23, 27, and 30-33 have been amended.
Claims 2, 8, and 10-20 have been cancelled
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 21-33 are pending and have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Specification
The specification was objected to because of informalities. Applicant has amended the specification to overcome the objections to the specification. Accordingly, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 22 and 32 were objected to because of informalities. Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot each of the objections. Accordingly, the objection of claims 22 and 32 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3-7, 9,and 21-33 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot some of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph,. Accordingly, some of the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9,and 21-33 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn. The examiner has maintained some of the 112 rejections as noted below.
Specifically, the rejection of claim 4 is maintained. Claim 4 recites “clustering, by the first terminal, the corresponding stay durations of the plurality of terminals at the trip start position to obtain a plurality of first curves;”. It is not clear how the data points of each of the plurality of terminals are clustered. The examiner noted Figure 8 and Applicants specification at [0172-0174] in the non-final rejection and described that is unclear how it is determined how to cluster points into a first curve 1, a first curve 2, and a first curve 3. As understood by the examiner each of the data points are simply a dwell time or a waiting duration time. Thus, for example, terminals may report times of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 minute dwell times. For example, it is not clear how it is determined whether the 80 minute data point is clustered with the 70 minute or the 90 minute waiting duration. The examiner further notes that the each of first curves show that the overlap another curve, and thus it is not clear how a data point within the overlapping region is “clustered” or determined to fall within which curve. In statistical analysis it is common to determine a normal distribution or a Gaussian distribution of data points to determine the most probable value for a parameter. Perhaps the clustering of the data is based on season, time of day, etc. However, Applicant has not provided that indication in the claim and thus, the Examiner is left to guess how the clustering is performed, what is based upon, and the algorithm for determining the clustering. Claim 25 has a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reason.
In response Applicant points to [00177-0179] indicating types of trip start position, trip start time, trip ticket type, and further indicating a type of airline or size of airport, however the cited paragraphs do not describe clustering based on these different types as described. Further Figure 8 does not show this purported claimed subject matter. Instead, [00174] only describes clustering based on wait durations without relating them to the types as argued by Applicant:
When the trip information is flight information, exemplarily, FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram of distribution curves of waiting durations according to an embodiment of this application. As shown in FIG. 8, the computing engine clusters the corresponding stay durations of the plurality of terminals at the trip start position, and three first curves corresponding to clustered durations may be obtained by calculation, which are a first curve 1, a first curve 2, and a first curve 3 respectively. A waiting duration corresponding to the first curve 1 is 40 minutes, a waiting duration corresponding to the first curve 2 is 70 minutes, and a waiting duration corresponding to the first curve 3 is 90 minutes. The computing engine may fit the first curve 1, the first curve 2, and the first curve 3 into a second curve. The computing engine calculates area ratios of the first curve 1, the first curve 2, and the first curve 3 to the second curve respectively. For example, when the area ratio of the first curve 2 to the second curve is maximum, the computing engine may determine the waiting duration corresponding to the first curve 2 as the first duration. That is, the first duration is 70 minutes. [0175] In a second possible implementation, the computing engine clusters the corresponding stay durations of the plurality of terminals at the trip start position, the computing engine obtains a plurality of third durations, and the computing engine acquires, from the service platform, a plurality of historical durations that the first terminal historically stays at the trip start position. The computing engine clusters the plurality of historical durations to obtain an average duration of the plurality of historical durations. The computing engine determines one of the plurality of third durations as the first duration when an absolute value of a difference between the average duration and the one of the plurality of third durations is less than or equal to a first threshold.
Accordingly, the lack of clarity remains and the rejection is maintained.
The examiner rejected claim 4-6, 9, 21-22, 25-27 and 30-32 for antecedent basis issues. Applicant indicates that these have remedied in all claims however, the examiner notes that at least claims 26, 29 continue to recite “a first duration” though “a first duration” was previously recited in claim 23 from which they depend therefrom. Similarly, claim 30 continues to recite “a second duration” although it was previously recited in claim 23. Accordingly these claims remain rejected under 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 3-7, 9,and 21-33 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9,and 21-33 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
However, the claims do not merely recite generic mathematical calculations. They recite a specific, dynamic operational loop executed by a "first terminal" that requires "acquiring, by the first terminal at a first time, a second duration required to arrive at the trip start position from a position of the first terminal." This requires the terminal to dynamically acquire real-time travel data based on its current physical geolocation. The continuous, real-time acquisition of dynamic travel durations based on a device's physical position, coupled with the automated, conditional triggering of a graphical user interface, cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the examiner notes that the claim as written does not recite “dynamically acquiring real-time travel data based on the terminal’s current physical geolocation”. The claim recites “acquiring, by the first terminal at a first time, a second duration required to arrive at the trip start position from a position of the first terminal”, There is no further determination based on the position of the terminal to create a dynamic operational loop as asserted by Applicant. The additional limitations of “the terminal” and “a processor and a memory, the memory being configured to store code instructions; and when the processor executes the code” are recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “calculating” and “determining” and “acquiring”. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer (see [00269] of the instant application).
Further, the display step is not required in the method claim (claim 1) because there is no positive recitation of displaying. Rather, the display step is triggered only if it is determined that the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration ( a contingent limitation). Regarding the claims 23 and 33, the step of displaying is considered extra solution activity as addressed in the rejection.
Applicant further argues:
Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite an abstract idea under Prong I, the claims are patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong II because they integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(d) instructs that a claim integrates an abstract idea into a practical application when it "improves the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field." As described in the Specification at paragraphs [0004]-[0005], conventional terminal devices provide departure reminding services, but "when the departure time is inaccurate, the user may depart too early or too late." The claimed invention provides a specific technical solution to this problem. As noted in paragraph [0007], the claimed method ensures that "when a first user departs from the first time, it may not be too early or too late, so as to improve accuracy of the first terminal reminding the user to depart."
The claims achieve this improvement through a specific, unconventional set of rules: the terminal projects an exact arrival time (the "second time"), calculates the estimated wait time at the destination (the "first difference"), and compares this to a required processing time (the "first duration"). The terminal is programmed to withhold the prompt (the "first interface") until this specific condition is met, or otherwise delay the check to a calculated "third time." This is not merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process; it is a specific, technical method of controlling when and how a mobile device triggers a graphical user interface prompt to optimize accuracy and prevent premature or delayed notifications. This constitutes a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(a). Therefore, the claims are patent-eligible, and withdrawal of the § 101 rejection is respectfully requested.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the MPEP citation provided (2106.04(d)(1) more fully states “A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (emphasis added)” In the instant case, the Applicant has pointed to the abstract ideas (the calculating step, the determining step) —both mental steps as described in the 101 rejection) to provide the purported improvement. Applicant has not pointed to the additional elements that provide the technological improvement. As discussed in the rejection, the additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The rejection has been updated in this office action to reflect the claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § § 102 and 103
Claim(s) 1, 21, 22, 23, 29, 31, 32, and 33 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tumayan et al. (WO 2013/149735, hereinafter “Tumanyan”).
Claim(s) 3 and 24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumayan in view of Rawat et al. (US-20210110490-A1, hereinafter “Rawat”).
Claim(s) 5 and 26 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumayan in view of Reyes et al. (US-10009868-B1, hereinafter “Reyes”) in further view of Zhang et al. ("Load Characteristics Analysis Based on Improved K-means Clustering Algorithm," hereinafter “Zhang”).
Claim(s) 9 and 30 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumayan in view of Sood et al. (US-20200118137-A1, hereinafter “Sood”).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-17, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 21, 22, 23, 29, 31, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Independent Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 23 and 33) recites a specific operational mechanism. The claimed invention projects the user's arrival at the destination by calculating a "second time" (the exact time of day the user will arrive at the airport). It then calculates a "first difference" (the estimated wait time at the airport). Finally, it compares this estimated wait time to a required "first duration" (e.g., the time needed for security and check-in). The prompt is triggered only when it is determined that the estimated wait time is less than or equal to the required wait time.
In contrast, Tumayan operates as a simple countdown timer at the origin. As explicitly defined in Tumayan at paragraph [0093], it calculates a single "Remaining time" by subtracting all required durations (travel, security, check-in, boarding) and the current time from the flight departure time: "'Remaining time" = "Flight departure time" - ("boarding duration" + "security checks duration" + "check-in duration" + "estimated travel duration") - "Current time"'. Tumayan evaluates whether this single "Remaining time" value hits a warning buffer or drops below zero.
Tumayan's processor never calculates the claimed "second time" (the arrival time at the airport) or the claimed "first difference" (the wait time at the airport). While the Examiner argues that the equations can be algebraically manipulated to be mathematically equivalent, a computer processor executes these as fundamentally different operational steps. Because Tumayan lacks the specific calculating and determining steps recited in the claims, it cannot anticipate them.
Furthermore, Claim 1 has been amended to explicitly recite "determining, by the first terminal, whether the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration." Tumayan lacks this specific conditional comparison. Because Tumayan fails to disclose each and every element of
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., projecting the user's arrival at the destination by calculating a "second time" (the exact time of day the user will arrive at the airport)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim does not recite calculating a second time rather it recites “calculating by the first terminal a first difference between a departure time and a second time, the second time being a time after the first time passes the second duration…” The examiner asserts that Tumayan discloses calculating this first difference and comparing the first difference to the first duration and providing a prompt as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., The prompt is triggered only when it is determined that the estimated wait time is less than or equal to the required wait time)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim does not recite calculating a second time rather it recites “calculating by the first terminal a first difference between a departure time and a second time, the second time being a time after the first time passes the second duration…” The examiner asserts that Tumayan discloses calculating the first difference and comparing the first difference to the first duration and providing a prompt as claimed.
Specifically, as pointed out in the updated rejection below Tumayan teaches calculating, by the first terminal, a first difference between a departure time and a second time, the second time being a time after the first time passes the second duration; the departure time being the trip start time on the trip start date (see at least Tumayan [0058] 7A-C and specifically the equation provided and explained in [0092-0094] “Put another way, the hurry status indication may be determined formulaically as follows: "Remaining time (duration)" = "Flight departure time" - ("boarding duration" + "security checks duration" + "check-in duration" + "estimated travel duration") - "Current time" .) Simply put the equation of Tumayan can be rearranged to be written as "Remaining time (duration)" = "Flight departure time" -"estimated travel duration" - "Current time" -("boarding duration" + "security checks duration" + "check-in duration"). Applicant has defined the first difference as a difference between a departure time and a second time (e.g. the time it would be after the travel time required to arrive at the airport), thus, the simplified term "Flight departure time" – ("estimated travel duration" + "Current time") corresponds to the first difference, and ("estimated travel duration" + "Current time") corresponds to the second time. Further the sum of the boarding duration, security check duration and the check in duration correspond to Applicant’s first duration (a time associated with the trip start position), such that the equation further simplifies to "remaining time" = "first difference”-“first duration”. Further Tumayan discloses determining if the first difference is less than or greater than a first duration based on this equation, as the difference between the first difference and the first or “the remaining time” is calculated. A positive, negative or 0 value will be produced. That remaining time is then further compared to a buffer amount and alert or display for all determinations (green, yellow and red) is provided and thus, Tumayan discloses displaying when it is determined that the first different is less than or equal to the first duration.
While the examiner discusses rearranging the equation or simplifying the equation, the examiner is simply showing the correspondence of Applicants definition of variables and Tumayan’s variables for ease of understanding.
Applicant does not provide a separate argument for the 103 rejections, rather relying upon the purported deficiencies of Tumayan that have been addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite” redetermining, by the first terminal at a third time, whether the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration when the first difference is greater than the first duration, wherein the third time being later than the first time”. This limitation is wholly unclear. First, it is not clear how the " the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration when the first difference is greater than the first duration”. How could the difference be less than or equal to and simultaneously greater than the first duration?
Further, it is not clear what the redetermining step is accomplishing if the same determination is made with the same variables determined at the first time. That is, if the first determination uses the first difference and the first duration and the redetermination step uses the same first difference and the same first duration, then how can the end result or determination be any different? At some point the data must be updated (e.g. a updated first duration to get through security), however this updating is not in claim as written. While the claim says it is calculated at a third time, the values are the same because as the claim refers back to “the first difference” and “the first duration” acquired at the first time. Claims 23 and 32 have a similar recitation and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 4 recites “clustering, by the first terminal, the corresponding stay durations of the plurality of terminals at the trip start position to obtain a plurality of first curves;”. It is not clear how the data points of each of the plurality of terminals are clustered. The examiner notes Figure 8 and Applicants specification at [0172-0174]. However, it is unclear how it is determined how to cluster points into a first curve 1, a first curve 2, and a first curve 3. As understood by the examiner each of the data points are simply a dwell time or a waiting duration time. Thus, for example, terminals may report times of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 minute dwell times. For example, it is not clear how it is determined whether the 80 minute data point is clustered with the 70 minute or the 90 minute waiting duration. The examiner further notes that the each of first curves show that the overlap another curve, and thus it is not clear how a data point within the overlapping region is “clustered” or determined to fall within which curve. In statistical analysis it is common to determine a normal distribution or a Gaussian distribution of data points to determine the most probable value for a parameter. Perhaps the clustering of the data is based on season, time of day, etc. However, Applicant has not provided that indication in the claim and thus, the Examiner is left to guess how the clustering is performed, what is based upon, and the algorithm for determining the clustering. Claim 25 has a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 23 recites “the first terminal” in line 7 and again in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 25, 26, 29 continue to recite “a first duration” though “a first duration” was previously recited in claim 23 from which they depend therefrom. It is not clear if the first duration of claims 25, 26, and 29 are the same or different first duration than that recited in claim 23.
Claim 26 recites “determining….one of the plurality of third durations as the first duration…” in line 12. It is not clear to the examiner how the third duration can be determined as the first duration as claimed. Claim 26 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 30 continues to recite “a first time, a second duration required to arrive at the trip start position from a position of the first terminal comprises..”. Claim 30 depends from claim 23 which previously recited “a first time” “a second duration” and “a position of the first terminal” As noted above, with claims 25-27, this creates ambiguity in the claim whether the previously recited elements are the same or different than the seemingly newly introduced elements of claim 30. Claim 30 has similar limitations and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 21 recites “acquiring, by the first terminal at a fourth time, a third duration required to arrive at the trip start position from a position of the first terminal”. Claim 21 depends from claim 1 which previously recited “acquiring, by the first terminal at a first time, a second duration required to arrive at the trip start position from a position of the first terminal”. It is not clear to the examiner if the third duration and the second duration are the same duration or different duration, and whether the fourth time is different than the first time. The examiner also points Applicant to [0218] wherein it is indicated that the forth duration is also known as the second duration and the fifth duration is also known as the third duration. Claim 31 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the calculation, by the first terminal, the second time comprises”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 22 depends from claim 1 which recites calculating a first difference, but does not recite calculating a second time. The examiner notes that it appears the step of calculating the second time may be missing from the claim. Claim 32 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 3-7, 9, and 21-22 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 24-32 depend from claim 23 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 23.
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, 3-7, 9, and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 1:
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
Claim 1 is directed toward method and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 23 is directed toward an electronic device and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 33 is directed toward computer-readable storage medium and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Independent claim 23 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 23 recites:
An electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, the memory being configured to store code instructions; and when the processor executes the code instructions, the electronic device performs the following actions:
acquiring, trip information, the trip information comprising a trip start time, a trip start position, and a trip start date;
acquiring, a first duration associated with the trip start position;
acquiring, by the first terminal at a first time, a second duration required to arrive at the trip start position from a position of the first terminal;
calculating, a first difference between a departure time and a second time, the second time being a time after the first time passes the second duration; the departure time being the trip start time on the trip start date;
determining, by the first terminal, whether the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration;
displaying, a first interface when it is determined that the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration, the first interface comprising information for prompting departure; and
redetermining, at a third time, whether the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration information for prompting departure is displayed on the first interface when the first difference is greater than the first duration, wherein the third time being later than the first time.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “calculating, a first difference between a departure time and a second time, the second time being a time after the first time passes the second duration; the departure time being the trip start time on the trip start date;” and “determining … whether the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration;” and “redetermining, at a third time, whether the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration information for prompting departure is displayed on the first interface when the first difference is greater than the first duration, wherein the third time being later than the first time.” steps encompass a human calculating using pen and paper a first difference in time between the departure time and the time it takes to travel to the airport and viewing their phone to confirm that they have received a reminder of their flight and further, at a later time repeating the step determining the departure time and the time it takes to travel to the airport.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 23 recites:
An electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, the memory being configured to store code instructions; and when the processor executes the code instructions, the electronic device performs the following actions:
acquiring, trip information, the trip information comprising a trip start time, a trip start position, and a trip start date;
acquiring, a first duration associated with the trip start position;
acquiring, by the first terminal at a first time, a second duration required to arrive at the trip start position from a position of the first terminal;
calculating, a first difference between a departure time and a second time, the second time being a time after the first time passes the second duration; the departure time being the trip start time on the trip start date;
determining, by the first terminal, whether the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration;
displaying, a first interface when it is determined that the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration, the first interface comprising information for prompting departure; and
redetermining, at a third time, whether the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration information for prompting departure is displayed on the first interface when the first difference is greater than the first duration, wherein the third time being later than the first time.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitations of “a processor and a memory, the memory being configured to store code instructions; and when the processor executes the code”, “acquiring, trip information, the trip information comprising a trip start time, a trip start position, and a trip start date;” “acquiring, a first duration associated with the trip start position;” “acquiring, by the first terminal at a first time, a second duration” and “displaying, a first interface when the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration, the first interface comprising information for prompting departure required to arrive at the trip start position from a position of the first terminal” the examiner submits that these limitations merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Specifically, the courts have held that merely reciting the works “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitations of “a processor and a memory, the memory being configured to store code instructions; and when the processor executes the code” and “by the terminal” are recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “calculating” “determining”, and “redetermining”. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer (see [00269] of the instant application).
Further, the limitations of “acquiring, trip information, the trip information comprising a trip start time, a trip start position, and a trip start date;” “acquiring, a first duration associated with the trip start position;” “acquiring, by the first terminal at a first time, a second duration” and “displaying a first interface when it is determined that the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration, the first interface comprising information for prompting departure” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering and data output) and amounts to mere data gathering and data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See at least MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 23 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor and a memory, the memory being configured to store code instructions; and when the processor executes the code”, “by the terminal” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic components (see [0269] of the instant application). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, as discussed above, the additional limitations acquiring, trip information, the trip information comprising a trip start time, a trip start position, and a trip start date;” “acquiring, a first duration associated with the trip start position;” “acquiring, by the first terminal at a first time, a second duration” and “displaying, a first interface when the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration, the first interface comprising information for prompting departure required to arrive at the trip start position from a position of the first terminal” the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 1 and 33 have similar recitations to claim 23 and the analysis above with respect to claim 23 also applies to claim 1 and 33.
Dependent claim(s) 3-7, 9, and 21-22 and 24-32 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are considered mental process steps (determining, clustering, fitting, calculating, redetermining of claims 4, 5, 9, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32) and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering or output (e.g. acquiring, obtaining, querying, displaying of claim 4, 5, 6, 9, 21, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31). These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 3-7, 9, and 21-22 and 24-32 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 21-33 are not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 21, 22, 23, 29, 31, 32, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tumayan et al. (WO 2013/149735, hereinafter “Tumanyan”).
Regarding claim 1, Tumayan discloses a trip prompting method, applied to a first terminal (see at least Tumayan Figure 2, mobile device 14) , the method comprising:
acquiring, by the first terminal, trip information, the trip information comprising a trip start time, a trip start position, and a trip start date (see at least Tumayan [0090] In this embodiment, in order to compute the hurry status indication, the following information may be retrieved from several sources, including, for example: Current user location, obtained from GPS… • Flight departure time, retrieved from a trip record. • Time for end of boarding, retrieved from an airline rule from the traveler's ticket or reservation.” See also [0080] and [0083] “Once a trip is registered for a traveler, a monitor trip routine 130, e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 5, may be used to determine a hurry status indication for a traveler. Routine 130 is initiated when monitor client 132 obtains a current location for the traveler, e.g., based upon GPS data or other geolocation information associated with the mobile device (block 32). The mobile client then forwards a request for a hurry status indication to the monitor server…. For example, from a booking engine, the monitor server may retrieve up-to-date trip details from a trip record, e.g., the trip segments (start location, end location, start date, end date, operator identifier, flight/train number), paid amount, modification and cancellation allowance, etc. (block 138). In addition, the booking engine may be accessed to retrieve flight information, e.g., the status of specific flights, flight delays, boarding gate information, etc. (block 140). Furthermore, the booking engine may be accessed to retrieve airline or carrier rules from the trip record, e.g., the end of boarding time, remarks, etc. (block 142” )
acquiring, by the first terminal, a first duration associated with the trip start position (see at least Tumayan [0090] In this embodiment, in order to compute the hurry status indication, the following information may be retrieved from several sources, including, for example:….Required time to pass the security checks at the airport, e.g.,approximated by a constant or via airport specific rules retrieved from an airport data server.” See also [0085] “ From an airport data server, the monitor server may retrieve airport data in block 146, e.g., rules associated with a minimum time needed at the airport before flight departure, min/max/average check-in duration, duration to go through the security checkpoints (segregated by domestic and international), duration to go through customs, etc. In addition, if supported by an airport data server, historical or real-time data may be provided, e.g., to permit the monitor server to account for historical durations at the airport or any durations monitored in real-time by the airport. It will be appreciated that the various travel information may be retrieved from external services in parallel.” See also [0040] and [0076])
acquiring, by the first terminal at a first time, a second duration required to arrive at the trip start position from a position of the first terminal (see at least Tumayan [0090] “In this embodiment, in order to compute the hurry status indication, the following information may be retrieved from several sources, including, for example:… Estimated travel duration, e.g., for transfer in a car, a driving itinerary and duration, taking into account road traffic, as determined by a directions engine based on a mode of transportation selected by the traveler via the monitor client.” See also [0084] “From a directions engine, the monitor server may retrieve an estimated travel duration, which is determined or computed in block 144. The estimated travel duration is based on two locations A (traveler's current location) and B (airport location), and may include determining a route from A to B, based on the traveler's selected mode of transportation (car, bus, train, walk, etc.), and typically accounts for real-time delay information such as traffic delays, train delays, etc. The total estimated duration to reach the location B from location A is returned by the directions engine.” See also [0039]. )
calculating, by the first terminal, a first difference between a departure time and a second time, the second time being a time after the first time passes the second duration; the departure time being the trip start time on the trip start date (see at least Tumayan [0091] Using the information above, the monitor client and/or monitor server application adds all the estimated durations (estimated travel duration for traveling to the airport, check-in duration for completing check-in, security check duration for passing through security checkpoint, "warning buffer", etc.) and, based on "milestone times" (flight departure, end of boarding, end of check-in) and the current time, determines the hurry status indication. In addition, the hurry status indication may be based upon an estimated remaining duration that is determined based upon the estimated durations, the flight departure and the current time.” The examiner notes that the first difference is the time between the departure time and time of the travelers time of arrival to the airport duration if the traveler leaves their location at the first time, that is, the anticipated wait time for waiting at the airport which corresponds to the estimated remaining duration.) and
determining, by the first terminal, whether the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration (see at least Tumayan [0058] “In the embodiment discussed hereinafter, a mobile application resident on a mobile device 14 and functioning as a monitor client displays to a traveler a hurry status indication that may include, for example, a color indicator indicating whether an estimated remaining duration for a traveler is outside of a warning buffer (e.g., green), is within a warning buffer (e.g., yellow), or is beyond a warning buffer (e.g., red). In addition, the hurry status indication may include a time remaining and/or a deadline time enabling a traveler to quickly and easily ascertain when the traveler needs to commence a trip, and in particular a transfer segment thereof, in order to successfully board a scheduled passenger vehicle, e.g., an airplane, prior to departure. …” See also 7A-C and especially 7B which displays when the remaining time is the same or less than the anticipated time required to be spent at the airport for checks, check-in etc. [0092-0094] “Put another way, the hurry status indication may be determined formulaically as follows: "Remaining time (duration)" = "Flight departure time" - ("boarding duration" + "security checks duration" + "check-in duration" + "estimated travel duration") - "Current time" . Simply put the equation of Tumayan can be rearranged to be written as "Remaining time (duration)" = "Flight departure time" -"estimated travel duration" - "Current time" -("boarding duration" + "security checks duration" + "check-in duration"). Applicant has defined the first difference as a difference between a departure time and a second time (e.g. the time it would be after the travel time required to arrive at the airport), thus, the simplified term "Flight departure time" – ("estimated travel duration" + "Current time") corresponds to the first difference and ("estimated travel duration" + "Current time") corresponds to the second time. Further the sum of the boarding duration, security check duration and the check in duration correspond to Applicant’s first duration (a time associated with the trip start position), such that the equation further simplifies to "remaining time" = "first difference”-“first duration”. Further Tumayan discloses determining if the difference is less than or greater than a first duration based on this equation, as the difference or the remaining time is calculated. That remaining time is then further compared to a buffer amount and alert or display for all determinations (green, yellow and red) is provided and thus, Tumayan discloses displaying when it is determined that the first different is less than or equal to the first duration. While the examiner discusses rearranging the equation or simplifying the equation, the examiner is simply showing the correspondence of Applicants definition of variables and Tumayan’s variables.)
displaying, by the first terminal, a first interface when the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration, the first interface comprising information for prompting departure (see at least Tumayan [0058] ,Figure 7A-C and [0092-0094] as cited above, specifically [0094] “The hurry status indication may then be set as green (OK) if "Remaining time (duration)" > "warning buffer duration", as yellow (WARN) if 0 < "Remaining time (duration)" <= "warning buffer duration", and as red (KO) if 0 >= "Remaining time (duration)”.” Further Tumayan discloses determining if the difference is less than or greater than a first duration based on this equation, as the difference or the remaining time is calculated. That remaining time is then further compared to a buffer amount and alert or display for all determinations (green, yellow and red) is provided and thus, Tumayan discloses displaying when it is determined that the first different is less than or equal to the first duration.)
redetermining, by the first terminal at a third time, whether the information for prompting departure is displayed on the first interface when the first difference is greater than the first duration; the third time being later than the first time (see at least Tumayan Figures 8A -8C and [0097] and [0099] wherein the terminal determines in the previous step that it is not with in the time period i.e. a green status, the terminal checks at a later time and updates information based on the later time such as traffic information/delays. See for example 8B wherein the time needed to travel to airport has increased and thus this shows that the information has been updated or redetermined when the first difference is greater than the first duration (e.g. green status as shown in 8A). [0097] “Fig. 8B illustrates display 200 after a transition has occurred to the next, yellow status. In this display, indicator 202 is displayed in yellow, and timers 204, 206 are updated with current information. Notably, timer 206 has been updated to indicate additional delays associated with traveling to the airport, e.g., due to an increase in traffic.” [[0099] It will be appreciated that display 200 may be generated locally by a mobile device, or may be generated by a central service and communicated to the mobile device for display thereon. It will also be appreciated that implementation of the aforementioned functionality on a mobile device would be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art having the benefit of the instant disclosure.”).
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 23, the examiner notes that Tumayan further discloses an electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, the memory being configured to store code instructions; and when the processor executes the code instructions, the electronic device performs the actions recited and rejected in claim 1 (see at least Tumayan Figure 2, mobile device with memory 44 and processor 42 See [0050-0054] “[0050] Similar to computer 12, mobile device 14 includes a central processing unit 42, memory 44, user interface 46, mass storage device 48 and network interface 50, albeit specifically configured for use in a mobile device such as a mobile phone, tablet or smart phone…. [0052] In general, the routines executed to implement the embodiments of the invention, whether implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions, or even a subset thereof, will be referred to herein as "computer program code," or simply "program code." Program code typically comprises one or more instructions that are resident at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processors in a computer, cause that computer to perform the steps necessary to execute steps or elements embodying the various aspects of the invention.”)
Regarding claim 33, the examiner notes that Tumayan discloses a computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores instructions, and the instructions, when executed, cause an electronic device to perform the actions recited and rejected in claim 1 see at least Tumayan Figure 2 and [0050-0054] . For example [0052] “In general, the routines executed to implement the embodiments of the invention, whether implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions, or even a subset thereof, will be referred to herein as "computer program code," or simply "program code." Program code typically comprises one or more instructions that are resident at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processors in a computer, cause that computer to perform the steps necessary to execute steps or elements embodying the various aspects of the invention. Moreover, while the invention has and hereinafter will be described in the context of fully functioning computers and computer systems, those skilled in the art will appreciate that the various embodiments of the invention are capable of being distributed as a program product in a variety of forms, and that the invention applies equally regardless of the particular type of computer readable media used to actually carry out the distribution…[0053] Such computer readable media may include computer readable storage media and communication media. Computer readable storage media is non-transitory in nature, and may include volatile and non-volatile, and removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data….”).
Regarding claim 21, Tumayan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein when the trip information is flight information, the method further comprising:
acquiring, by the first terminal at a fourth time, a third duration required to arrive at the trip start position from the position of the first terminal (see at least Tumayan wherein a boarding duration can be considered the third duration, though it is not limited to this as explained in [0040] “For example, where the passenger vehicle is an airplane, the processing duration may include a check-in duration associated with the traveler checking in at a ticketing kiosk or station, a security check duration associated with the traveler passing through a security checkpoint (potentially differing between domestic and international checkpoints), a boarding duration associated with the traveler traveling to a departure gate and boarding the passenger vehicle, and/or additional durations associated with other activities required to board the passenger vehicle in a timely manner, e.g., durations associated with returning a rental vehicle, walking or riding between different locations in an airport terminal such as from a rental return area to a ticketing station, from a ticketing station to a security checkpoint, or from a security checkpoint to a departure gate (i.e., a departure gate duration), etc. ” See also [0085] “From an airport data server, the monitor server may retrieve airport data in block 146, e.g., rules associated with a minimum time needed at the airport before flight departure, min/max/average check-in duration, duration to go through the security checkpoints (segregated by domestic and international), duration to go through customs, etc. In addition, if supported by an airport data server, historical or real-time data may be provided, e.g., to permit the monitor server to account for historical durations at the airport or any durations monitored in real-time by the airport. It will be appreciated that the various travel information may be retrieved from external services in parallel.”
acquiring, by the first terminal, a fifth time; the fifth time being associated with a check-in state, the check-in state being acquired by the first terminal at the fourth time from a booking application based on the trip identifier, the trip start time, and the trip start date (see at least Tumayan [0040] For example, where the passenger vehicle is an airplane, the processing duration may include a check-in duration associated with the traveler checking in at a ticketing kiosk or station, a security check duration associated with the traveler passing through a security checkpoint (potentially differing between domestic and international checkpoints), a boarding duration associated with the traveler traveling to a departure gate and boarding the passenger vehicle, and/or additional durations associated with other activities required to board the passenger vehicle in a timely manner, e.g., durations associated with returning a rental vehicle, walking or riding between different locations in an airport terminal such as from a rental return area to a ticketing station, from a ticketing station to a security checkpoint, or from a security checkpoint to a departure gate (i.e., a departure gate duration), etc. ” See also [0085] “From an airport data server, the monitor server may retrieve airport data in block 146, e.g., rules associated with a minimum time needed at the airport before flight departure, min/max/average check-in duration, duration to go through the security checkpoints (segregated by domestic and international), duration to go through customs, etc. In addition, if supported by an airport data server, historical or real-time data may be provided, e.g., to permit the monitor server to account for historical durations at the airport or any durations monitored in real-time by the airport. It will be appreciated that the various travel information may be retrieved from external services in parallel.” );
calculating, by the first terminal, a second difference between the fifth time and a sixth time the sixth time being a time after the fourth time passes the third duration, the fifth time being later than the sixth time (see at least Tumayan [0091] Using the information above, the monitor client and/or monitor server application adds all the estimated durations (estimated travel duration for traveling to the airport, check-in duration for completing check-in, security check duration for passing through security checkpoint, "warning buffer", etc.) and, based on "milestone times" (flight departure, end of boarding, end of check-in) and the current time, determines the hurry status indication. In addition, the hurry status indication may be based upon an estimated remaining duration that is determined based upon the estimated durations, the flight departure and the current time.” See also [0090-0094] and specifically [0093] )
displaying, by the first terminal, a second interface when the second difference is less than or equal to a second threshold, the second interface comprising information for prompting departure (see at least Tumayan [0058] “In the embodiment discussed hereinafter, a mobile application resident on a mobile device 14 and functioning as a monitor client displays to a traveler a hurry status indication that may include, for example, a color indicator indicating whether an estimated remaining duration for a traveler is outside of a warning buffer (e.g., green), is within a warning buffer (e.g., yellow), or is beyond a warning buffer (e.g., red). In addition, the hurry status indication may include a time remaining and/or a deadline time enabling a traveler to quickly and easily ascertain when the traveler needs to commence a trip, and in particular a transfer segment thereof, in order to successfully board a scheduled passenger vehicle, e.g., an airplane, prior to departure. …” See also 7A-C and especially 7B which displays when the remaining time is the same or less than the anticipated time required to be spent at the airport for checks, check-in etc. [0092-0094] “Put another way, the hurry status indication may be determined formulaically as follows: "Remaining time (duration)" = "Flight departure time" - ("boarding duration" + "security checks duration" + "check-in duration" + "estimated travel duration") - "Current time" The examiner notes that the system is shown as updating the information (see e.g. Figure 8A-C) and thus, the display or interface is changed as time passes and the location of the traveler changes); and
redetermining, by the first terminal at a seventh time, whether the information for prompting departure is displayed on the first interface when the second difference is greater than the second threshold; wherein the seventh time being later than the fourth time see at least Tumayan Figures 8A 8C and [0097] and [0099] wherein the terminal determines in the previous step that it is not with in the time period i.e. a green status, the terminal checks at a later time and updates information based on the later time such as traffic information/delays. See for example 8B wherein the time needed to travel to airport has increased and thus this shows that the information has been updated or redetermined when the first difference is greater than the first duration (e.g. green status as shown in 8A). [0097] “Fig. 8B illustrates display 200 after a transition has occurred to the next, yellow status. In this display, indicator 202 is displayed in yellow, and timers 204, 206 are updated with current information. Notably, timer 206 has been updated to indicate additional delays associated with traveling to the airport, e.g., due to an increase in traffic.” [0099] It will be appreciated that display 200 may be generated locally by a mobile device, or may be generated by a central service and communicated to the mobile device for display thereon. It will also be appreciated that implementation of the aforementioned functionality on a mobile device would be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art having the benefit of the instant disclosure.”).
Claim 31 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 21, above.
Regarding claim 22, Tumayan discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein the calculating, by the first terminal, the second time comprises:
in response to determining that the check-in state is “not checked in”, determining, by the first terminal when the check-in state is Not check in, a check-in closing time acquired from the booking application as the fifth time; or
in response to determining that check-in state is “have checked in”, determining by the first terminal, a gate closing time acquired from the booking application as the fifth time; wherein the gate closing time being a time after the departure time minus a first value, and the departure time being the trip start time on the trip start date (see at least Tumayan [0090] “In this embodiment, in order to compute the hurry status indication, the following information may be retrieved from several sources, including, for example…• Flight departure time, retrieved from a trip record. • Time for end of boarding, retrieved from an airline rule from the traveler's ticket or reservation…• Time for end of check-in, retrieved from an airline rule from the traveler's ticket or reservation.” See also [0085] From an airport data server, the monitor server may retrieve airport data in block 146, e.g., rules associated with a minimum time needed at the airport before flight departure, min/max/average check-in duration, duration to go through the security checkpoints (segregated by domestic and international), duration to go through customs, etc. In addition, if supported by an airport data server, historical or real-time data may be provided, e.g., to permit the monitor server to account for historical durations at the airport or any durations monitored in real-time by the airport. It will be appreciated that the various travel information may be retrieved from external services in parallel.” See also the description [0090-0094]).) .
Claim 32 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 22, above.
Regarding claim 29, Tumayan discloses the electronic device (see at least Figure 2. Mobile device 14) according to claim 23, wherein the acquiring, a first duration associated with the trip start position comprises:
acquiring, the first duration from a service platform; the service platform being configured to serve the first terminal, and the first duration being calculated by the service platform according to corresponding stay durations of a plurality of terminals at the trip start position (see at least Tumayan Figure 2, central service 12, including monitor server 58, see also [0048] “The central service typically coordinates hurry status monitoring, and includes one or more computers 12 coupled to mobile device 14 through a public or private network such as the Internet, with various functions associated with hurry status monitoring allocated between the central service and mobile device 14 for a particular traveler. In addition, the central service and/or mobile device 14 may rely on additional services in order to perform hurry status monitoring, e.g., an itinerary service or engine 22, from which a traveler's itinerary may be retrieved, a booking service or engine 24 from which schedule information may be obtained and a traveler may book, modify, cancel or rebook a reservation, and a directions engine or service 26 from which information may be retrieved to determine an estimated remaining duration for a traveler given the traveler's current location.” See also [0084- 0086] “ [0084] From a directions engine, the monitor server may retrieve an estimated travel duration, which is determined or computed in block 144. The estimated travel duration is based on two locations A (traveler's current location) and B (airport location), and may include determining a route from A to B, based on the traveler's selected mode of transportation (car, bus, train, walk, etc.), and typically accounts for real-time delay information such as traffic delays, train delays, etc. The total estimated duration to reach the location B from location A is returned by the directions engine….From an airport data server, the monitor server may retrieve airport data in block 146, e.g., rules associated with a minimum time needed at the airport before flight departure, min/max/average check-in duration, duration to go through the security checkpoints (segregated by domestic and international), duration to go through customs, etc. In addition, if supported by an airport data server, historical or real-time data may be provided, e.g., to permit the monitor server to account for historical durations at the airport or any durations monitored in real-time by the airport. It will be appreciated that the various travel information may be retrieved from external services in parallel…[0086] Based upon the retrieved travel information, the monitor server then, in block 148, computes or determines a hurry status indication. The indication is then forwarded to the mobile client, which then updates, and typically displays this indication in block 150.”) See also [0040] and [0076]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 21, 22, 23, 29, 31, 32, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumayan.
Regarding claim 1, Tumayan teaches a trip prompting method, applied to a first terminal (see at least Tumayan Figure 2, mobile device 14) , the method comprising:
acquiring, by the first terminal, trip information, the trip information comprising a trip start time, a trip start position, and a trip start date (see at least Tumayan [0090] In this embodiment, in order to compute the hurry status indication, the following information may be retrieved from several sources, including, for example: Current user location, obtained from GPS… • Flight departure time, retrieved from a trip record. • Time for end of boarding, retrieved from an airline rule from the traveler's ticket or reservation.” See also [0080] and [0083] “Once a trip is registered for a traveler, a monitor trip routine 130, e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 5, may be used to determine a hurry status indication for a traveler. Routine 130 is initiated when monitor client 132 obtains a current location for the traveler, e.g., based upon GPS data or other geolocation information associated with the mobile device (block 32). The mobile client then forwards a request for a hurry status indication to the monitor server…. For example, from a booking engine, the monitor server may retrieve up-to-date trip details from a trip record, e.g., the trip segments (start location, end location, start date, end date, operator identifier, flight/train number), paid amount, modification and cancellation allowance, etc. (block 138). In addition, the booking engine may be accessed to retrieve flight information, e.g., the status of specific flights, flight delays, boarding gate information, etc. (block 140). Furthermore, the booking engine may be accessed to retrieve airline or carrier rules from the trip record, e.g., the end of boarding time, remarks, etc. (block 142” )
acquiring, by the first terminal, a first duration associated with the trip start position (see at least Tumayan [0090] In this embodiment, in order to compute the hurry status indication, the following information may be retrieved from several sources, including, for example:….Required time to pass the security checks at the airport, e.g.,approximated by a constant or via airport specific rules retrieved from an airport data server.” See also [0085] “ From an airport data server, the monitor server may retrieve airport data in block 146, e.g., rules associated with a minimum time needed at the airport before flight departure, min/max/average check-in duration, duration to go through the security checkpoints (segregated by domestic and international), duration to go through customs, etc. In addition, if supported by an airport data server, historical or real-time data may be provided, e.g., to permit the monitor server to account for historical durations at the airport or any durations monitored in real-time by the airport. It will be appreciated that the various travel information may be retrieved from external services in parallel.” See also [0040] and [0076])
acquiring, by the first terminal at a first time, a second duration required to arrive at the trip start position from a position of the first terminal (see at least Tumayan [0090] “In this embodiment, in order to compute the hurry status indication, the following information may be retrieved from several sources, including, for example:… Estimated travel duration, e.g., for transfer in a car, a driving itinerary and duration, taking into account road traffic, as determined by a directions engine based on a mode of transportation selected by the traveler via the monitor client.” See also [0084] “From a directions engine, the monitor server may retrieve an estimated travel duration, which is determined or computed in block 144. The estimated travel duration is based on two locations A (traveler's current location) and B (airport location), and may include determining a route from A to B, based on the traveler's selected mode of transportation (car, bus, train, walk, etc.), and typically accounts for real-time delay information such as traffic delays, train delays, etc. The total estimated duration to reach the location B from location A is returned by the directions engine.” See also [0039]. )
calculating, by the first terminal, a first difference between a departure time and a second time, the second time being a time after the first time passes the second duration; the departure time being the trip start time on the trip start date (see at least Tumayan [0091] Using the information above, the monitor client and/or monitor server application adds all the estimated durations (estimated travel duration for traveling to the airport, check-in duration for completing check-in, security check duration for passing through security checkpoint, "warning buffer", etc.) and, based on "milestone times" (flight departure, end of boarding, end of check-in) and the current time, determines the hurry status indication. In addition, the hurry status indication may be based upon an estimated remaining duration that is determined based upon the estimated durations, the flight departure and the current time.” The examiner notes that the first difference is the time between the departure time and time of the travelers time of arrival to the airport duration if the traveler leaves their location at the first time, that is, the anticipated wait time for waiting at the airport which corresponds to the estimated remaining duration.) and
determining, by the first terminal, whether the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration (see at least Tumayan [0058] “In the embodiment discussed hereinafter, a mobile application resident on a mobile device 14 and functioning as a monitor client displays to a traveler a hurry status indication that may include, for example, a color indicator indicating whether an estimated remaining duration for a traveler is outside of a warning buffer (e.g., green), is within a warning buffer (e.g., yellow), or is beyond a warning buffer (e.g., red). In addition, the hurry status indication may include a time remaining and/or a deadline time enabling a traveler to quickly and easily ascertain when the traveler needs to commence a trip, and in particular a transfer segment thereof, in order to successfully board a scheduled passenger vehicle, e.g., an airplane, prior to departure. …” See also 7A-C and especially 7B which displays when the remaining time is the same or less than the anticipated time required to be spent at the airport for checks, check-in etc. [0092-0094] “Put another way, the hurry status indication may be determined formulaically as follows: "Remaining time (duration)" = "Flight departure time" - ("boarding duration" + "security checks duration" + "check-in duration" + "estimated travel duration") - "Current time" . Simply put the equation of Tumayan can be rearranged to be written as "Remaining time (duration)" = "Flight departure time" -"estimated travel duration" - "Current time" -("boarding duration" + "security checks duration" + "check-in duration"). Applicant has defined the first difference as a difference between a departure time and a second time (e.g. the time it would be after the travel time required to arrive at the airport), thus, the simplified term "Flight departure time" – ("estimated travel duration" + "Current time") corresponds to the first difference and ("estimated travel duration" + "Current time") corresponds to the second time. Further the sum of the boarding duration, security check duration and the check in duration correspond to Applicant’s first duration (a time associated with the trip start position), such that the equation further simplifies to "remaining time" = "first difference”-“first duration”. Further Tumayan discloses determining if the difference is less than or greater than a first duration based on this equation, as the difference or the remaining time is calculated. That remaining time is then further compared to a buffer amount and alert or display for all determinations (green, yellow and red) is provided and thus, Tumayan discloses displaying when it is determined that the first different is less than or equal to the first duration. While the examiner discusses rearranging the equation or simplifying the equation, the examiner is simply showing the correspondence of Applicants definition of variables and Tumayan’s variables.)
displaying, by the first terminal, a first interface when the first difference is less than or equal to the first duration, the first interface comprising information for prompting departure (see at least Tumayan [0058] ,Figure 7A-C and [0092-0094] as cited above, specifically [0094] “The hurry status indication may then be set as green (OK) if "Remaining time (duration)" > "warning buffer duration", as yellow (WARN) if 0 < "Remaining time (duration)" <= "warning buffer duration", and as red (KO) if 0 >= "Remaining time (duration)”.” Further Tumayan discloses determining if the difference is less than or greater than a first duration based on this equation, as the difference or the remaining time is calculated. That remaining time is then further compared to a buffer amount and alert or display for all determinations (green, yellow and red) is provided and thus, Tumayan discloses displaying when it is determined that the first different is less than or equal to the first duration.)
redetermining, by the first terminal at a third time, whether the information for prompting departure is displayed on the first interface when the first difference is greater than the first duration; the third time being later than the first time (see at least Tumayan Figures 8A -8C and [0097] and [0099] wherein the terminal determines in the previous step that it is not with in the time period i.e. a green status, the terminal checks at a later time and updates information based on the later time such as traffic information/delays. See for example 8B wherein the time needed to travel to airport has increased and thus this shows that the information has been updated or redetermined when the first difference is greater than the first duration (e.g. green status as shown in 8A). [0097] “Fig. 8B illustrates display 200 after a transition has occurred to the next, yellow status. In this display, indicator 202 is displayed in yellow, and timers 204, 206 are updated with current information. Notably, timer 206 has been updated to indicate additional delays associated with traveling to the airport, e.g., due to an increase in traffic.” [[0099] It will be appreciated that display 200 may be generated locally by a mobile device, or may be generated by a central service and communicated to the mobile device for display thereon. It will also be appreciated that implementation of the aforementioned functionality on a mobile device would be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art having the benefit of the instant disclosure.”).
While the examiner maintains that Tumayan discloses calculating the first difference (the wait time at the airport) compares the first difference to the first duration by subtraction, as explained above, to further prosecution the examiner submits in addition that it would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tumayan to directly calculate the second time ("estimated travel duration" + "Current time") and then use the second time to separate calculate the first difference ("Flight departure time" – ("estimated travel duration" + "Current time") and then use a use these values in the in the equation because of the communitive property of mathematics. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tumayan to use comparison operators (greater than, less than, or equal to) rather than subtraction (positive, negative or zero result) to provide a comparison result based on the data type and the processors design and/or as determined by the programmer.
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 23, the examiner notes that Tumayan further teaches an electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, the memory being configured to store code instructions; and when the processor executes the code instructions, the electronic device performs the actions recited and rejected in claim 1 (see at least Tumayan Figure 2, mobile device with memory 44 and processor 42 See [0050-0054] “[0050] Similar to computer 12, mobile device 14 includes a central processing unit 42, memory 44, user interface 46, mass storage device 48 and network interface 50, albeit specifically configured for use in a mobile device such as a mobile phone, tablet or smart phone…. [0052] In general, the routines executed to implement the embodiments of the invention, whether implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions, or even a subset thereof, will be referred to herein as "computer program code," or simply "program code." Program code typically comprises one or more instructions that are resident at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processors in a computer, cause that computer to perform the steps necessary to execute steps or elements embodying the various aspects of the invention.”)
Regarding claim 33, the examiner notes that Tumayan teaches a computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores instructions, and the instructions, when executed, cause an electronic device to perform the actions recited and rejected in claim 1 see at least Tumayan Figure 2 and [0050-0054] . For example [0052] “In general, the routines executed to implement the embodiments of the invention, whether implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions, or even a subset thereof, will be referred to herein as "computer program code," or simply "program code." Program code typically comprises one or more instructions that are resident at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processors in a computer, cause that computer to perform the steps necessary to execute steps or elements embodying the various aspects of the invention. Moreover, while the invention has and hereinafter will be described in the context of fully functioning computers and computer systems, those skilled in the art will appreciate that the various embodiments of the invention are capable of being distributed as a program product in a variety of forms, and that the invention applies equally regardless of the particular type of computer readable media used to actually carry out the distribution…[0053] Such computer readable media may include computer readable storage media and communication media. Computer readable storage media is non-transitory in nature, and may include volatile and non-volatile, and removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data….”).
Regarding claim 21, Tumayan teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein when the trip information is flight information, the method further comprising:
acquiring, by the first terminal at a fourth time, a third duration required to arrive at the trip start position from the position of the first terminal (see at least Tumayan wherein a boarding duration can be considered the third duration, though it is not limited to this as explained in [0040] “For example, where the passenger vehicle is an airplane, the processing duration may include a check-in duration associated with the traveler checking in at a ticketing kiosk or station, a security check duration associated with the traveler passing through a security checkpoint (potentially differing between domestic and international checkpoints), a boarding duration associated with the traveler traveling to a departure gate and boarding the passenger vehicle, and/or additional durations associated with other activities required to board the passenger vehicle in a timely manner, e.g., durations associated with returning a rental vehicle, walking or riding between different locations in an airport terminal such as from a rental return area to a ticketing station, from a ticketing station to a security checkpoint, or from a security checkpoint to a departure gate (i.e., a departure gate duration), etc. ” See also [0085] “From an airport data server, the monitor server may retrieve airport data in block 146, e.g., rules associated with a minimum time needed at the airport before flight departure, min/max/average check-in duration, duration to go through the security checkpoints (segregated by domestic and international), duration to go through customs, etc. In addition, if supported by an airport data server, historical or real-time data may be provided, e.g., to permit the monitor server to account for historical durations at the airport or any durations monitored in real-time by the airport. It will be appreciated that the various travel information may be retrieved from external services in parallel.”
acquiring, by the first terminal, a fifth time; the fifth time being associated with a check-in state, the check-in state being acquired by the first terminal at the fourth time from a booking application based on the trip identifier, the trip start time, and the trip start date (see at least Tumayan [0040] For example, where the passenger vehicle is an airplane, the processing duration may include a check-in duration associated with the traveler checking in at a ticketing kiosk or station, a security check duration associated with the traveler passing through a security checkpoint (potentially differing between domestic and international checkpoints), a boarding duration associated with the traveler traveling to a departure gate and boarding the passenger vehicle, and/or additional durations associated with other activities required to board the passenger vehicle in a timely manner, e.g., durations associated with returning a rental vehicle, walking or riding between different locations in an airport terminal such as from a rental return area to a ticketing station, from a ticketing station to a security checkpoint, or from a security checkpoint to a departure gate (i.e., a departure gate duration), etc. ” See also [0085] “From an airport data server, the monitor server may retrieve airport data in block 146, e.g., rules associated with a minimum time needed at the airport before flight departure, min/max/average check-in duration, duration to go through the security checkpoints (segregated by domestic and international), duration to go through customs, etc. In addition, if supported by an airport data server, historical or real-time data may be provided, e.g., to permit the monitor server to account for historical durations at the airport or any durations monitored in real-time by the airport. It will be appreciated that the various travel information may be retrieved from external services in parallel.” );
calculating, by the first terminal, a second difference between the fifth time and a sixth time the sixth time being a time after the fourth time passes the third duration, the fifth time being later than the sixth time (see at least Tumayan [0091] Using the information above, the monitor client and/or monitor server application adds all the estimated durations (estimated travel duration for traveling to the airport, check-in duration for completing check-in, security check duration for passing through security checkpoint, "warning buffer", etc.) and, based on "milestone times" (flight departure, end of boarding, end of check-in) and the current time, determines the hurry status indication. In addition, the hurry status indication may be based upon an estimated remaining duration that is determined based upon the estimated durations, the flight departure and the current time.” See also [0090-0094] and specifically [0093] )
displaying, by the first terminal, a second interface when the second difference is less than or equal to a second threshold, the second interface comprising information for prompting departure (see at least Tumayan [0058] “In the embodiment discussed hereinafter, a mobile application resident on a mobile device 14 and functioning as a monitor client displays to a traveler a hurry status indication that may include, for example, a color indicator indicating whether an estimated remaining duration for a traveler is outside of a warning buffer (e.g., green), is within a warning buffer (e.g., yellow), or is beyond a warning buffer (e.g., red). In addition, the hurry status indication may include a time remaining and/or a deadline time enabling a traveler to quickly and easily ascertain when the traveler needs to commence a trip, and in particular a transfer segment thereof, in order to successfully board a scheduled passenger vehicle, e.g., an airplane, prior to departure. …” See also 7A-C and especially 7B which displays when the remaining time is the same or less than the anticipated time required to be spent at the airport for checks, check-in etc. [0092-0094] “Put another way, the hurry status indication may be determined formulaically as follows: "Remaining time (duration)" = "Flight departure time" - ("boarding duration" + "security checks duration" + "check-in duration" + "estimated travel duration") - "Current time" The examiner notes that the system is shown as updating the information (see e.g. Figure 8A-C) and thus, the display or interface is changed as time passes and the location of the traveler changes); and
redetermining, by the first terminal at a seventh time, whether the information for prompting departure is displayed on the first interface when the second difference is greater than the second threshold; wherein the seventh time being later than the fourth time see at least Tumayan Figures 8A 8C and [0097] and [0099] wherein the terminal determines in the previous step that it is not with in the time period i.e. a green status, the terminal checks at a later time and updates information based on the later time such as traffic information/delays. See for example 8B wherein the time needed to travel to airport has increased and thus this shows that the information has been updated or redetermined when the first difference is greater than the first duration (e.g. green status as shown in 8A). [0097] “Fig. 8B illustrates display 200 after a transition has occurred to the next, yellow status. In this display, indicator 202 is displayed in yellow, and timers 204, 206 are updated with current information. Notably, timer 206 has been updated to indicate additional delays associated with traveling to the airport, e.g., due to an increase in traffic.” [0099] It will be appreciated that display 200 may be generated locally by a mobile device, or may be generated by a central service and communicated to the mobile device for display thereon. It will also be appreciated that implementation of the aforementioned functionality on a mobile device would be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art having the benefit of the instant disclosure.”).
Claim 31 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 21, above.
Regarding claim 22, Tumayan teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein the calculating, by the first terminal, the second time comprises:
in response to determining that the check-in state is “not checked in”, determining, by the first terminal when the check-in state is Not check in, a check-in closing time acquired from the booking application as the fifth time; or
in response to determining that check-in state is “have checked in”, determining by the first terminal, a gate closing time acquired from the booking application as the fifth time; wherein the gate closing time being a time after the departure time minus a first value, and the departure time being the trip start time on the trip start date (see at least Tumayan [0090] “In this embodiment, in order to compute the hurry status indication, the following information may be retrieved from several sources, including, for example…• Flight departure time, retrieved from a trip record. • Time for end of boarding, retrieved from an airline rule from the traveler's ticket or reservation…• Time for end of check-in, retrieved from an airline rule from the traveler's ticket or reservation.” See also [0085] From an airport data server, the monitor server may retrieve airport data in block 146, e.g., rules associated with a minimum time needed at the airport before flight departure, min/max/average check-in duration, duration to go through the security checkpoints (segregated by domestic and international), duration to go through customs, etc. In addition, if supported by an airport data server, historical or real-time data may be provided, e.g., to permit the monitor server to account for historical durations at the airport or any durations monitored in real-time by the airport. It will be appreciated that the various travel information may be retrieved from external services in parallel.” See also the description [0090-0094]).) .
Claim 32 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 22, above.
Regarding claim 29, Tumayan teaches the electronic device (see at least Figure 2. Mobile device 14) according to claim 23, wherein the acquiring, a first duration associated with the trip start position comprises:
acquiring, the first duration from a service platform; the service platform being configured to serve the first terminal, and the first duration being calculated by the service platform according to corresponding stay durations of a plurality of terminals at the trip start position (see at least Tumayan Figure 2, central service 12, including monitor server 58, see also [0048] “The central service typically coordinates hurry status monitoring, and includes one or more computers 12 coupled to mobile device 14 through a public or private network such as the Internet, with various functions associated with hurry status monitoring allocated between the central service and mobile device 14 for a particular traveler. In addition, the central service and/or mobile device 14 may rely on additional services in order to perform hurry status monitoring, e.g., an itinerary service or engine 22, from which a traveler's itinerary may be retrieved, a booking service or engine 24 from which schedule information may be obtained and a traveler may book, modify, cancel or rebook a reservation, and a directions engine or service 26 from which information may be retrieved to determine an estimated remaining duration for a traveler given the traveler's current location.” See also [0084- 0086] “ [0084] From a directions engine, the monitor server may retrieve an estimated travel duration, which is determined or computed in block 144. The estimated travel duration is based on two locations A (traveler's current location) and B (airport location), and may include determining a route from A to B, based on the traveler's selected mode of transportation (car, bus, train, walk, etc.), and typically accounts for real-time delay information such as traffic delays, train delays, etc. The total estimated duration to reach the location B from location A is returned by the directions engine….From an airport data server, the monitor server may retrieve airport data in block 146, e.g., rules associated with a minimum time needed at the airport before flight departure, min/max/average check-in duration, duration to go through the security checkpoints (segregated by domestic and international), duration to go through customs, etc. In addition, if supported by an airport data server, historical or real-time data may be provided, e.g., to permit the monitor server to account for historical durations at the airport or any durations monitored in real-time by the airport. It will be appreciated that the various travel information may be retrieved from external services in parallel…[0086] Based upon the retrieved travel information, the monitor server then, in block 148, computes or determines a hurry status indication. The indication is then forwarded to the mobile client, which then updates, and typically displays this indication in block 150.”) See also [0040] and [0076]).
Claim(s) 3 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumayan in view of Rawat et al. (US-20210110490-A1, hereinafter “Rawat”)
Regarding claim 3, Tumayan discloses the method according to claim 1, including providing updates (see at least [0086] “Based upon the retrieved travel information, the monitor server then, in block 148, computes or determines a hurry status indication. The indication is then forwarded to the mobile client, which then updates, and typically displays this indication in block 150. “ See also Figures 8A-8C and accompanying description [0097]“Fig. 8B illustrates display 200 after a transition has occurred to the next, yellow status. In this display, indicator 202 is displayed in yellow, and timers 204, 206 are updated with current information. Notably, timer 206 has been updated to indicate additional delays associated with traveling to the airport, e.g., due to an increase in traffic.”, but does not explicitly discloses wherein the third time satisfies the following formula: the third time=the first time+(the first difference-the first duration)/2.
Rawat teaches updating the time estimates continuously such that they would meet the claimed third time satisfies the following formula: the third time=the first time+(the first difference-the first duration)/2 (see at least Rawat [0069] “For example, the route 511 between the airport 510 and attraction 512 can take about 1 hour by car. However, these time estimates can be continuously updated by the travel service based on real time traffic information, such as from an external maps source that the travel service scraps data from. Travel times can vary, for example, based on accidents, construction, rush hour and other events.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tumayan with the teaching of Rawat, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Rawat teaches continuously updating the time estimates takes into account real-time events such as traffic, thus providing the most accurate data for travel time (Rawat [0069])
Claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 3, above.
Claim(s) 5 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumayan in view of Reyes et al. (US-10009868-B1, hereinafter “Reyes”) in further view of Zhang et al. ("Load Characteristics Analysis Based on Improved K-means Clustering Algorithm," hereinafter “Zhang”)
Regarding claim 5, Tumayan discloses the method according to claim 1,wherein the acquiring, by the first terminal, the first duration associated with the trip start position comprises:
acquiring, by the first terminal, corresponding stay durations of [a plurality of terminals] at the trip start position from a service platform; wherein the service platform is configured to serve the first terminal (see at least Tumayan [0041] “In another embodiment, the duration may be based on a combination of a static duration component associated with traveling through an airport except for through a security checkpoint and a dynamic duration component associated with a security checkpoint, the latter of which may be determined either via real-time monitoring of the security checkpoint or historical delay information associated with the time of day during which the traveler is expected to be passing through the security checkpoint.;” See also [0085] “In addition, if supported by an airport data server, historical or real-time data may be provided, e.g., to permit the monitor server to account for historical durations at the airport or any durations monitored in real-time by the airport. It will be appreciated that the various travel information may be retrieved from external services in parallel.”)
acquiring, by the first terminal, a plurality of historical durations that the first terminal historically stays at the trip start position (see at least Tumayan [0041] “In another embodiment, the duration may be based on a combination of a static duration component associated with traveling through an airport except for through a security checkpoint and a dynamic duration component associated with a security checkpoint, the latter of which may be determined either via real-time monitoring of the security checkpoint or historical delay information associated with the time of day during which the traveler is expected to be passing through the security checkpoint.” See also [0042] “The warning buffer may be a static duration in some embodiments, or may be variable based upon historical information and/or real-time information,” See also [0085] “In addition, if supported by an airport data server, historical or real-time data may be provided, e.g., to permit the monitor server to account for historical durations at the airport or any durations monitored in real-time by the airport. It will be appreciated that the various travel information may be retrieved from external services in parallel.”));
While Tumayan discloses using a combination of real time and historical information regarding the duration for passing security checkpoints as cited above, Tumayan does not disclose
obtaining the data from a plurality of terminals
clustering, by the first terminal, the corresponding stay durations of the plurality of terminals at the trip start position to obtain a plurality of third durations;
obtaining, by the first terminal, an average duration of the plurality of historical durations;
and determining, by the first terminal, one of the plurality of third durations as the first duration when an absolute value of a difference between the average duration and the one of the plurality of third durations is less than or equal to a first threshold.
Reyes discloses acquiring corresponding stay durations of a plurality of terminals from a service platform (see at least Figure 1, terminals 110a, 110b and col. 10, line 60-col 11 line 20, and col 39, lines 25-40 “In some implementations, a proximity detection system may be capable of tracking the presence or movements of travelers over time, and can perform various analytics on the location data. For example, administrators or staff members having access to the administrative application may be able to track the flow of travelers through transportation hubs, may be able to determine an average amount of time travelers need to pass through security checkpoints,”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tumayan with the teaching of Reyes, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Reyes teaches this method allows for an accurate prediction of the time it will take to get through a security check point.
The combination of Tumayan and Reyes does not teach:
clustering, by the first terminal, the corresponding stay durations of the plurality of terminals at the trip start position to obtain a plurality of third durations;
obtaining, by the first terminal, an average duration of the plurality of historical durations;
and determining, by the first terminal, one of the plurality of third durations as the first duration when an absolute value of a difference between the average duration and the one of the plurality of third durations is less than or equal to a first threshold.
However, Zhang teaches:
clustering, by the first terminal, the corresponding stay durations of the plurality of terminals at the trip start position to obtain a plurality of third durations (see at least Reyes, page 511, A. Clustering Algorithm, “Data set X X X X [Symbol font/0x3D] [Symbol font/0x7B] 1 2 , , , L n[Symbol font/0x7D] containing n data sample objects is known, where , 1,2, , X i n i [Symbol font/0x3D] L is a d -dimensional vector. The clustering problem is to find a K value, and the division C C C C [Symbol font/0x3D] [Symbol font/0x7B] 1 2 , , , L K [Symbol font/0x7D] under this K value, satisfying…The main steps of clustering are composed of the following aspects [11]: Firstly, a data set consisting of a certain number of data objects is randomly input, and the data set is characterized by the characteristics of the data set and the dimension reduction. Secondly, the most effective features of the normalized features are selected and stored in a specific vector, and these effective features are transformed to obtain new features that best meet the clustering requirements. Then, the appropriate similarity measure function is selected to measure the correlation of the data objects in the input data set. After the data objects are clustered, the clustering results are effectively evaluated according to specific evaluation criteria, and the evaluation results can be used as a basis for improving and perfecting the clustering process in the future.”)
obtaining, by the first terminal, an average duration of the plurality of historical durations (see at least Reyes page 511 B. Data Preprocessing, p and 2 [Symbol font/0x73] t are the average load and variance of user at time” );
and determining, by the first terminal, one of the plurality of third durations as the first duration when an absolute value of a difference between the average duration and the one of the plurality of third durations is less than or equal to a first threshold (see at least Reyes B. Data preprocessing, see equation 6, “Making an abnormal number judgment by using 3 [Symbol font/0x73] principle: , … where [Symbol font/0x65] is the threshold value, usually ranging from 1 to 1.5.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tumayan and Reyes with the teaching of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Zhang teaches this is a statistical process that reduces the data noise (see Zhang page 511).
Claim 26 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 5, above.
Claim(s) 9 and 30. is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumayan in view of Sood et al. (US-20200118137-A1, hereinafter “Sood”)
Regarding claim 9, Tumayan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the acquiring, by the first terminal at the first time, the second duration required to arrive at the trip start position from the position of the first terminal comprises:
acquiring, by the first terminal, a fourth duration and a fifth duration [[from a taxi-hailing application]] at the first time; wherein the fourth duration is a taxi-hailing waiting duration, and the fifth duration is a distance duration required by the first terminal from the position of the first terminal to the trip start position at the first time (see at least Tumayan [0006] “For example, the transfer from the traveler's current location to the airport or train station may be affected by delays associated with the mode(s) of transportation used for the transfer. If traveling by car or taxi, for example, the amount of time required to reach the airport or train station will vary based upon distance, route traveled, and the presence of any traffic along the selected route. If traveling by public transportation such as bus, subway or rail, the amount of time may further be impacted by schedules and delays in service. “[0036] “Moreover, within the context of the invention, a trip segment may also represent the transfer of the traveler from his or her current location to a point of departure for a passenger vehicle for which the traveler has purchased a ticket or otherwise intends on boarding and riding. This latter type of trip segment, which may be referred to hereinafter as a transfer segment, may encompass traveling via one or more modes of transportation, e.g., a car, a bus, a taxi, a subway, etc. to the point of departure, such as an airport, train station or other terminal” See also [0039] “The estimated remaining duration may be based at least in part on an estimated transfer duration, which typically relates at least in part to an estimated travel duration required for the traveler to travel from a first location proximate his or her current location to a second location proximate a point of departure for a passenger vehicle upon which the traveler intends to travel. This estimated travel duration may be determined dynamically, and based upon one or more modes of transportation used for the transfer, e.g., car, taxi, bus, train, subway, etc., as well as any real-time delay information associated with such modes of transportation, e.g., known traffic delays and/or known delays in scheduled public transportation vehicles.” See also [0084]”) ; and
calculating, by the first terminal, a sum of the fourth duration and the fifth duration to obtain the second duration (See at least Tumayan [0039] “The estimated remaining duration may be based at least in part on an estimated transfer duration, which typically relates at least in part to an estimated travel duration required for the traveler to travel from a first location proximate his or her current location to a second location proximate a point of departure for a passenger vehicle upon which the traveler intends to travel. This estimated travel duration may be determined dynamically, and based upon one or more modes of transportation used for the transfer, e.g., car, taxi, bus, train, subway, etc., as well as any real-time delay information associated with such modes of transportation, e.g., known traffic delays and/or known delays in scheduled public transportation vehicles.”. See also [0084] “From a directions engine, the monitor server may retrieve an estimated travel duration, which is determined or computed in block 144. The estimated travel duration is based on two locations A (traveler's current location) and B (airport location), and may include determining a route from A to B, based on the traveler's selected mode of transportation (car, bus, train, walk, etc.), and typically accounts for real-time delay information such as traffic delays, train delays, etc. The total estimated duration to reach the location B from location A is returned by the directions engine.”).
Tumayan discloses determining the total time of the estimated travel duration including delays cause by the type of travel including travel time and delays for the transportation method such as a train which may be behind schedule or take time to arrive to the location based on its relative location. Tumayan does not explicitly disclose obtaining this information from a taxi hailing application.
Sood discloses obtaining average wait times from a taxi hailing application (see at least Sood [0318] “In determining travel time, the service may access real-time traffic data, route information, available transportation (i.e. the closest taxi, average wait time for an UBER® or LYFT®).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tumayan with the teaching of Sood to gather taxi wait time duration information from a taxi hailing application, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as noted by Sood the application would contain information about the closest vehicle and average times for the closest vehicle to arrive which would provide the most accurate estimate of time for determining the total time to the airport.
Claim 30 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 9, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20190230215-A1 and US-11909906-B2 are cited for showing displaying a prompt when it is determined that a first difference is less than or equal to the first duration and are pertinent to the instant claims and available as prior art (see at least Figure 8c and [0230] of US-20190230215-A1 “(1) Arrival reminder: As shown in FIG. 8(c), when a period of time that a current time is earlier than the departure time is less than or equal to an estimated travel time plus a security check time (for example, 40 minutes) plus a time and space advance (for example, in China, the advance is calculated as 30 minutes in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, or Shenzhen, and 10 minutes in other cities), the decision engine module determines that a preset service notification condition is met, pushes a departure reminder to the display engine module, and recommends operation options such as a taxi hailing option (a taxi hailing operation is)”).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights