DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made that this application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/060476 filed 11/23/2021. Acknowledgment is also made that PCT/US2021/060476 has priority to provisional application 63/134,191 filed 01/06/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/30/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS as to the merits.
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a process, claim 10 is directed to a statutory category as a machine, and claim 19 is directed to an article of manufacture as a computer readable medium, which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 10 and 19 recite the abstract idea of generating a report based on collected data related to a transportation network which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As per claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 10 and 19, the limitation of "configuring, at a configuration application running on a processor, alignment data, the alignment data relating to real-world constraints of the transportation network;” would be analogous to a person evaluating and collating data into a desired format and thus fall under Mental Processes. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As per claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 10 and 19, the limitation of “defining, at the configuration application running on the processor, a plurality of travel scenarios, the plurality of travel scenarios relating to movement of vehicles in the transportation network;” would be analogous to a person defining travel scenarios based on given data and thus fall under Mental Processes. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As per claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 10 and 19, the limitation of “simulating, at the data integration module running on the processor, a simulated run of a plurality of vehicles, the simulating being performed based on the plurality of travel scenarios and the alignment data;” would be analogous to a person evaluating the result of the travel scenarios based on given data and thus fall under Mental Processes. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As per claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 10 and 19, the limitation of “generating, at an analytics engine running on the processor, a plurality of analytics, the plurality of analytics being based on the plurality of simulated run results;” would be analogous to a person generating analytics of the travel scenarios based on given data and thus fall under Mental Processes. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 1, 10 and 19, the additional element of “a processor”, and the “computer readable medium”, in claim 19, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 10 and 19 of “storing, at a configuration database running on the processor, the alignment data;” and “storing, at the configuration database, the plurality of travel scenarios;” and “storing, at a data integration module running on the processor, a plurality of simulated run results;” and “outputting, at the configuration application, report data, the report data comprising the plurality of simulated run results and the plurality of analytics” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “storing, at a configuration database running on the processor, the alignment data;” and “storing, at the configuration database, the plurality of travel scenarios;” and “storing, at a data integration module running on the processor, a plurality of simulated run results;” and “outputting, at the configuration application, report data, the report data comprising the plurality of simulated run results and the plurality of analytics” in claims 1, 10, and 19, alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 10 and 19, the additional element of “a processor”, and the “computer readable medium”, in claim 19, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 10 and 19 of “storing, at a configuration database running on the processor, the alignment data;” and “storing, at the configuration database, the plurality of travel scenarios;” and “storing, at a data integration module running on the processor, a plurality of simulated run results;” and “outputting, at the configuration application, report data, the report data comprising the plurality of simulated run results and the plurality of analytics” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “storing, at a configuration database running on the processor, the alignment data;” and “storing, at the configuration database, the plurality of travel scenarios;” and “storing, at a data integration module running on the processor, a plurality of simulated run results;” and “outputting, at the configuration application, report data, the report data comprising the plurality of simulated run results and the plurality of analytics” in claims 1, 10, and 19, alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2 and 11 further define the types of vehicles which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claims 3 and 12 further define the types of data used in the generation of the report which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claims 4 and 13 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2))
Dependent claims 5, 14, and 20 further defines a prediction based on the provided data which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claims 6 and 15 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2))
Dependent claims 7 and 16 further defines the analysis of several scenarios based on the provided data which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claims 8 and 17 further defines a mathematical analysis of the recited data which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. The claimed mathematical analysis also represents the abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 further defines the type of report based on the provided data which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Appropriate correction is required.
vi) As per claims 19-20 they are rejected because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "computer-readable storage medium" to include non-statutory matter. The applicant describes a computer-readable storage medium as including open ended language and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible mediums, including non-statutory mediums (see paragraph 79 since the term “computer-readable storage medium” is not explicitly recited as limited to a non-transitory embodiment. Applicants use various variations of the term but not the precise term as recited in the claim.) The words "storage" and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter. The Examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to read as a "non-transitory machine-readable storage medium".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
6. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Merchant, Deep Vijay, and Stanislav M. Chankov. "Towards a European hyperloop network: An alternative to air and rail passenger travel." 2020 IEEE international conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM). IEEE, 2020, hereafter Merchant.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A method for simulating a transportation network, the method comprising:
configuring, at a configuration application running on a processor, alignment data, the alignment data relating to real-world constraints of the transportation network; (Merchant, Section II.B., Models 1 and 2, estimation of travel times between stations and passenger flows; II.C., user cost per km; Section III.A, realistic values for the frequency of Hyperloop tubes)
storing, at a configuration database running on the processor, the alignment data; (Merchant. Figure 6, with respective Network 1 and Network 2)
defining, at the configuration application running on the processor, a plurality of travel scenarios, the plurality of travel scenarios relating to movement of vehicles in the transportation network; (Merchant. Figure 2. Examiner Notes the Network 1 and Network 2 represent different travel scenarios)
storing, at the configuration database, the plurality of travel scenarios; (Merchant. Figure 6, with respective Network 1 and Network 2)
simulating, at the data integration module running on the processor, a simulated run of a plurality of vehicles, the simulating being performed based on the plurality of travel scenarios and the alignment data; (Merchant. Section IIIA)
storing, at a data integration module running on the processor, a plurality of simulated run results; (Merchant. Figure 6, with respective Network 1 and Network 2)
generating, at an analytics engine running on the processor, a plurality of analytics, the plurality of analytics being based on the plurality of simulated run results; and (Merchant. Section IIIB)
outputting, at the configuration application, report data, the report data comprising the plurality of simulated run results and the plurality of analytics. (Merchant. Figure 6, with respective Network 1 and Network 2)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of vehicles is selected from the group consisting of: a hyperloop pod and a terminal vehicle. (Merchant. Figure 1, Hyperloop network)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the alignment data further comprises velocity profile data, portal model data, demand model data, cost model data, and vehicle model data. (Page 1, right column, middle paragraph, “Hyperloop networks is based on four key performance indicators: (1) average travel time, (2) utilization, (3) passenger service level, and (4) revenue generation.”)
Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, the method further comprising: predicting, at a prediction modeler running on the processor, an event occurring within the transportation network, the predicting being performed based on the plurality of simulated run results. (Merchant. Page 4, Experiment Results)
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the simulated run is performed on a batch of travel scenarios selected from the plurality of travel scenarios. (Merchant. Figure 6, with respective Network 1 and Network 2)
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses The method of claim 7, wherein the report data further comprises a batch report, the batch report being based on the batch of travel scenarios. (Merchant. Figure 6, with respective Network 1 and Network 2)
Regarding Claim 10: See rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11: See rejection for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12: See rejection for claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14: See rejection for claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16: See rejection for claim 7.
Regarding Claim 18: See rejection for claim 9.
Regarding Claim 19: See rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20: See rejection for claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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.
7. Claim(s) 4, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merchant in view of Horak, Jiri, et al. "Modelling public transport accessibility with Monte Carlo stochastic simulations: A case study of Ostrava." Sustainability 11.24 (2019): 7098, hereafter Horak.
Regarding Claim 4: Merchant does not explicitly recite The method of claim 1, wherein the simulated run is executed on the processor, the executing being performed in parallel.
However Horak discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the simulated run is executed on the processor, the executing being performed in parallel. (Horak. Page 10, Section 4.2, first paragraph “Simulations are performed in a system called TRAMsim. As was mentioned previously, the most frequent variants of simulation machines are ABM models. However, generally ABM models are not considered to be designed for extensive simulations [79]. In this case study, procedural modelling was preferred because of the massive extent of searching for PT connections and the requirements for parallel and distributed processing.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to utilize the parallel processing of Horak for the simulation in Merchant since “Achieving results within a reasonable timeframe requires massive parallel data processing.” (Horak, Page 10, Section 4.2, 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6: Merchant does not explicitly recite The method of claim 1, wherein the configuration application is a desktop application, a mobile application, a cloud-based application, or a combination thereof.
However Horak discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the configuration application is a desktop application, a mobile application, a cloud-based application, or a combination thereof. (Horak. Figure 5)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to utilize the desktop application of Horak for the simulation in Merchant since “Generation of the travel requirements is done using the local copy of the underlying data to eliminate any overloads of the central server. During the subsequent receipt of the results, the local server writes the results onto both servers. This method significantly reduces the load on the central server, which allows for an increase in the number of clients by a factor greater than 100..” (Horak, Page 10, Section 4.2, 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 8: Merchant does not explicitly recite The method of claim 7, wherein the batch of travel scenarios is generated using a Monte Carlo algorithm.
However Horak discloses The method of claim 7, wherein the batch of travel scenarios is generated using a Monte Carlo algorithm. (Horak. Abstract, “The new TRAMsim system uses a Monte Carlo approach, which evaluates all possible public transport and walking origin–destination (O–D) trips for k-nearest stops within a given time interval, and selects appropriate variants according to the expected scenarios and parameters derived from local surveys.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to utilize the Monte Carlo algorithm of Horak for the simulation in Merchant since it would “evaluates all possible public transport and walking origin–destination (O–D) trips for k-nearest stops within a given time interval, and selects appropriate variants according to the expected scenarios and parameters derived from local surveys.” (Horak, Abstract)
Regarding Claim 13: See rejection for claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15: See rejection for claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17: See rejection for claim 8.
Conclusion
8. All Claims are rejected.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) Shahmoradi, Amir, and Fatemeh Bagheri. "Paradram: A cross-language toolbox for parallel high-performance delayed-rejection adaptive metropolis markov chain monte carlo simulations." arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.09589 (2020).
ii) Jeon, Seungwoo, and Bonghee Hong. "Monte Carlo simulation-based traffic speed forecasting using historical big data." Future generation computer systems 65 (2016): 182-195.
iii) Qu, Yunchao, and Xuesong Zhou. "Large-scale dynamic transportation network simulation: A space-time-event parallel computing approach." Transportation research part c: Emerging technologies 75 (2017): 1-16.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights