DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
3.1 Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Is the claim directed to a statutory category?
Yes. The claims are to a method (claim 1), a non-transitory medium (claim 9).
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a method (claim 1), a non-transitory medium (claim 9), for designing a multimodal transport network comprising: The step of: “generating an optimized transport network design by optimizing a multimodal communicability measure by adapting active edges of at least one of layers of the transport network”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “a non-transitory … medium”, “a program of machine readable instructions”, “a digital processing apparatus”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para [00101-0112], and fig.3) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para [0036]) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “outputting the optimized transport network design”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under insignificant post-solution activities” that is also well-known, routine and conventional activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “a non-transitory … medium”, “a program of machine readable instructions”, “a digital processing apparatus”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para [00101-0112], and fig.3) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para [0036]) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “outputting the optimized transport network design”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under insignificant post-solution activities” that is also well-known, routine and conventional activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
3.2 Dependent claims 2-8 merely include limitations pertaining to further mathematical concept and/or mental process (claim 2), “obtaining a current state of the transport network; obtaining past congestion information of the transport network; obtaining event information on planned events in an area of the transport network; evaluating velocity information of transport movement along edges of a graph including plural layers representing the multimodal transport network based on at least the obtained current state of the transport network; predicting congestion levels for the edges of the transport network based on the obtained current state of the transport system, the obtained past congestion information, the obtained event information and the evaluated velocity information; computing weights for the edges based on the predicted congestion levels and associating the computed weights with the edges of the plural layers of the multimodal transport network; and computing the multimodal communicability measure based on the computed weights associated with the edges of the plural layers of the multimodal transport network” (mathematical concept and/or mental process). (claim 3); “a step of adding a layer based on an additional mode of transport to the graph of the multimodal transport network, and generating the optimized transport network design for the multimodal transport network including the added layer based on the additional mode of transport” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 4); “wherein the added layer based on the additional mode of transport adds an urban air mobility transport network to the multimodal transport network” (mathematical concept or otherwise mental process); (claim 5); “wherein in the step of generating the optimized transport network design by optimizing the multimodal communicability measure, active edges of the added layer based on the additional mode of transport are adapted” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 6); “receiving a planning process initiation message at predetermined time intervals during operation of the multimodal transport network, and automatically starting generating the optimized transport network design when receiving the planning process initiation message” (data gathering and processing); (claim 7) “wherein the multimodal communicability measure is configured to incentivize paths that use multiple modes of transport and to penalize paths that require many transfers between different modes of transport” (mental process); (claim 8) “computing the multimodal communicability measure using the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
256
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” (mathematical concept); all of which further amount to further mathematical concept and/or mental process similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
4.0 Claim(s) 1, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2020/0182637).
4.1 In considering claim 1 and 9, Kumar et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for designing a multimodal transport network (see title, abstract, Systems, apparatus, and methods for implementing multi-modal transport transform generalized transport objectives), the method comprising steps of:
generating an optimized transport network design by optimizing a multimodal communicability measure by adapting active edges of at least one of layers of the transport network (see para [0015] Assist with selection of candidate mode options (e.g., optimal mode options) for the long-distance legs, leveraging a range of 3rd party platforms for local legs. Modes covered include commercial air (few hubs), future regional air (many airfields), flight-sharing, on-demand and charter air (many airfields), rail and high-speed rail (few terminals), car, shuttle and bus. [0016] Enable operators to capitalize on flexibility by optimizing supply based on evolving demand, versus preponderance of fixed schedules today. [0017] Reserve itineraries in a way that continually optimizes transport across changing supply, transport conditions and transport needs over time, versus rigid reservations today. Orchestrate multi-modal journeys in real-time. [0030], a method for generating a multi-modal itinerary for a journey is described herein. The journey can comprise of at least a first segment defined by a first origin and a first destination. The first segment can include a plurality of legs. The plurality of legs can include at least a first long-distance leg that is defined by a first departure terminal and a first arrival terminal respectively that correspond to first start and end points of the first long-distance leg. [0083-0084], The system then calculates a candidate window, such as, an optimal window, for reserving the trip based on fare outlooks for the selected modes, and proceeds based on traveler input on timing. Options are reduced to three tiers of tracked itineraries based on their Utility, or alternate metric preferred by the traveler, such that collectively they offer a high likelihood of generating a candidate trip (e.g., an optimal trip). The first tier is itineraries of superior Utility that are targeted for reservation at optimal fare levels. 0158], For example, certainty may be determined by optimizing the network for varying levels of demand and travel conditions to generate alternate schedules from which the certainty of individual itineraries can be derived.); and outputting the optimized transport network design (see para [0187] Also, a computer may have one or more input and output devices. These devices can be used, among other things, to present a user interface. Examples of output devices that can be used to provide a user interface include printers or display screens for visual presentation of output and speakers or other sound generating devices for audible presentation of output. [0114], [0114] A key function of the BUILD element (e.g., Build 310 in FIG. 3 and BUILD 410 in FIG. 4) of the system disclosed herein is generating itineraries that optimally meet the traveler's or shipper's Objectives and Preferences for each segment of a trip.). Kumar et al. further teaches that non-transitory computer-readable storage medium along with the program of machine-readable instructions executable and the digital processing apparatus of claim 9 (see fig.18, para [0181]).
4.2 As per claim 7, Kumar et al. teaches that wherein the multimodal communicability measure is configured to incentivize paths that use multiple modes of transport (see para [0032] At least a first origin-destination pair of the plurality of origin-destination pairs can include a departure terminal for a long-distance leg, an arrival terminal for the long-distance leg, a long-distance transport mode and corresponding duration for the long-distance mode between the departure terminal and the arrival terminal for the long-distance leg, at least one of an operator, a platform, and a marketplace that provides the long-distance transport mode, and at least one local leg transport mode option corresponding to the departure terminal and the arrival terminal for the long-distance leg. The long-distance transport mode can include at least one of a long-haul air transport mode, a regional air transport mode, a railway transport mode, and a highway transport mode.) and to penalize paths that require many transfers between different modes of transport (see para [0101], A held itinerary, specific or generalized, guarantees travel as described typically with limited time for conversion to reserved, but comes with fewer or no change penalties. [0127] Given changeability of travel needs and itineraries, reservation recommendations are based on Utilities adjusted for the greater option value of itineraries subject to lower rather than higher change penalties. The probabilities and Utilities are derived from a combination of fare histories and recent fare trajectories using techniques similar to those described to calculate candidate reservation windows (e.g., optimal reservation windows) and fare outlooks described previously. The cost of this benefit is accounted for reducing the Utility by an amount equal to the total cost incurred when changing the itinerary times the likelihood the better itinerary will be offered. Costs include change penalties or hold fees, but may also include an allocated cost of change insurance if purchased for flexibility on the trip.).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2-6, 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
6.1 Mecca et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,519,695) teaches an apparatus and method for generating an optimized operation of a multimodal unit as a function of a network optimizer.
6.2 Villa et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2022/0114506) teaches systems and methods for optimizing multi-modal transportation over a time period that includes a simulation system configured to generate simulation data, a servicing system configured to generate servicing data, and a planning system configured to determine a multi-modal transportation itinerary based on the simulation and servicing data.
6.3 Berlingerio et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2015/0170162) teaches a method for inferring inconvenient travel experiences may include analyzing, with a processing device, a record of a displacement of a traveler, detecting a traveler displacement pattern indicative of a potential inconvenience, verifying a transport network status corresponding to the potential inconvenience, and validating an inferred inconvenience based on the potential inconvenience and the transport network status.
7. Claims 1-9 are rejected and this action is non-final. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights