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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 11/18/25 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 20-25, are pending.
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, 5-7, 9, 20-25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system, a non-transitory machine readable medium, and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of determining a route to be driven for an individual that is subject to a legal restriction, so that they don to violate that legal restriction, such as a restraining order against another person or company, etc..
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claim 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving a drive request, the drive request identifying a source location and a destination location;
determining that the requesting individual is currently subject to a legal restriction, wherein the legal restriction restricts mobility of the individual;
generating a custom navigational drive route for the drive request for driving a vehicle between the source location and the destination location that satisfies the legal restriction; and
providing the custom drive route to a driver associated with the driving service,
receiving the custom navigational drive route, and
presenting the custom navigational drive route without presenting a first notification of the legal restriction affecting the custom route and
monitoring for any deviation of the vehicle from the custom navigational drive route and, responsive to detecting a deviation of the vehicle from the custom navigational drive route, only then presenting a second notification that the custom navigational drive route being provided is a mandatory route
The above limitations are reciting a method of complying with a legal obligation in the form of a travel restriction, such as when a restraining order placed upon a person that limits places they can be at, such as drug areas, bars, etc.. This is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities in the form of satisfying a legal obligation. If a person is subject to a movement restriction due to a court order, taking steps to avoid a prohibited movement according to the legal restriction is the act of comply with the legal restriction. This is the act of satisfying a legal obligation and places the claimed elements noted above into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities.
For claim 1, the additional elements of the claim are the recitation to a system that includes at least one processor and memory that stores instructions to perform the steps that are considered to define the abstract idea, use of a first and second communication device (both generically recited), an electronic display, and the use of the word “electronic” to describe the drive request, the custom navigational drive route, the notifications, and the monitoring (electronically monitoring).
For claim 20 the additional elements of the claim are the recitation to a system that includes at least one processor and memory, use of a first and second communication device (both generically recited), and the use of the word “electronic” to describe the drive request, the custom navigational drive route, the notifications, and the monitoring (electronically monitoring).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device(s) with a processor and memory and generically recited first and second communication devices, that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited processor and memory, and using a generically recited first and second communication devices to perform steps that define the abstract idea. The same is noted for the claimed electronic display that is on the second communication device that is being used to display a notification to a user. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web) to a first and second communication device such as a mobile phone, all being generically recited. The claimed first and second communication devices claimed can be a mobile phone or a laptop computer, both of which inherently have an electronic display. For this reason the recitation to the communication devices and the electronic display, and calling the data of the claim “electronic”, are elements that serve to link the execution of the abstract idea to generic computer implementation. The server and the communication devices in the claim are being used as a tool to execute the recited steps, which does not amount to integration into a practical application. The processor(s), first and second communication devices, and the electronic display are all generically recited and do not amount to more than a general link to a particular technological environment that is the use of computers to perform the abstract idea. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. The claims recite the use of a computing device(s) with a processor and memory and the generically recited first and second communication devices, as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited processor and memory, and using a generically recited first and second communication devices to perform steps that define the abstract idea. The same is noted for the claimed electronic display that is on the second communication device that is being used to display a notification to a user. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web) to a first and second communication device such as a mobile phone, all being generically recited. The claimed first and second communication devices claimed can be a mobile phone or a laptop computer, both of which inherently have an electronic display. For this reason the recitation to the communication devices and the electronic display, and calling the data of the claim “electronic”, are elements that serve to link the execution of the abstract idea to generic computer implementation. The processor(s), first and second communication devices, and the electronic display are all generically recited and do not amount to more than a general link to a particular technological environment that is the use of computers to perform the abstract idea.
For claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 21, 23, the applicant is reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was found for claim 1. Claiming that the legal restriction pertains to court orders to stay away….., that the restriction relates to known drug dealers, liquor stores, schools…., generating an optimal route and providing the optimal route and the custom route with an indication that the custom route is generated to avoid a parolee velation, and reciting that the legal restriction comprises avoiding routes that come within a predetermined distance to any school are all elements that serve to further define the abstract idea of the claims. The type of legal restriction at hand and providing the routes to the user are further recitations to the process of satisfying a legal obligation and are considered to be part of the abstract idea. The claimed use of the first communication device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1 to which applicant is referred, and does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons. The claims are not found to be eligible.
For claims 6, 22, the abstract idea is being further defined by:
registering a third communication device of a person protected by a restraining order,
wherein identifying that the individual is currently subject to the legal restriction comprises the identifying a current location of the person protected by the restraining order at a time of the driving request,
wherein the generating the custom drive route comprises generating the custom driving route by avoiding coming within a predetermined distance of the current location of the person protected
A person can perform the above steps with no technology at all. The claimed elements are part of the abstract idea. No further additional elements are claimed such that the claims have been integrated into a practical application or to recite significantly more. The claim is not eligible.
For claims 24, 25, the abstract idea is being further defined by the claim elements of:
receiving a second drive request, the second drive request identifying a second source location and a second destination location;
determining that the requesting individual is currently subject to the legal restriction,
wherein the legal restriction restricts mobility of the individual;
while attempting to generate a second custom navigational drive route for the drive request for driving the vehicle between the second source location and the second destination location that satisfies the legal restriction, determining that no route is possible for the vehicle between the second source location and the second destination location that satisfies the legal restriction, and
responsively transmitting a message falsely indicating that no driver is currently available to drive the route; and
displaying the message
The above elements are claiming the receipt of another drive request and determining that no route can be taken that satisfies the legal requirement and sending out a notification (the content of the notification is non-functional descriptive material that is akin to claiming printed matter as the content of the notification is not executable to do anything and only has meaning to a human being). The fact that the notification is falsely informing the requestor that no driver is available is claiming an aspect of the abstract idea. The labeling of the notification and the request as being electronic and the use of the first communication device are additional elements that are taken as an instruction for one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited processor and memory, and using a generically recited first communication device to perform steps that define the abstract idea. Calling the request and the notification of the claim “electronic”, is generally linking the execution of the abstract idea to generic computer implementation as was stated for claims 1,20. This does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons set forth for claims 1, 20. The claims are not eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 20-25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 20, 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magzimof et al. (20190385460) in view of Branch et al. (5760742).
For claims 1, 5, 20, Magzimof discloses a computerized system and method that identifies an occupant in a vehicle, so that a judicial restriction on the movement of the occupant and the vehicle can be enforced. In general see paragraph 004 where this is disclosed. The system includes a server 120, a vehicle 102, network 145, and terminals 110 (the claimed 1st, 2nd communication devices). Also see figure 1 where the overall system is disclosed. This satisfies the claimed communication system that comprises a system that includes at least one processor, memory that stores instructions, and a non-transitory machine readable medium (memory). The claimed receiving of a drive request and determining that the requesting individual is currently subject to a legal restriction is disclosed in paragraphs 013, 023, 034, and 047. Magzimof teaches for an occupant of a vehicle, such as a passenger, the system will use the occupant identification of to look up any restrictions on the movement of the occupant, such as those set forth in a judicial restriction, see paragraphs 023, 034, 047.
Magzimof teaches that the location of the vehicle is determined in paragraph 013, and discloses that a destination (paragraph 047) is used to determine a route to be taken to the destination that would not allow the occupant to violate a judicial restriction on their movement. Also see paragraph 004 where it is disclosed that route guidance is being given to a driver so that a violation will not occur. This requires destination information to be received that specifies where the occupant want to travel to so that a route can be generated. This satisfies the drive request. Magzimof teaches that the system can present a route to the driver that specifies a route that is to be taken, see paragraph 033. Magzimof teaches that the restriction may be a restriction that specifies particular routes to be taken, such that navigation may be limited to a set of predetermined routes. The claimed generating of a custom route for the drive request that satisfies the legal restriction and the providing of the route to the driver is disclosed in paragraphs 009, 011, 015, 038. Navigation guidance in the form of routes to be taken are being provided to the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle ( could be the occupant) via a display of the vehicle (the 2nd communication device). This also satisfies the recitation to the route being an optimal route as is recited in claim 7.
With respect to the language reciting that the custom drive route is provided to the driver without presenting a first electronic notification of the legal restriction affecting the custom route, this is satisfied by Magzimof. Magzimof does not teach that the driver is given any indication as to the legal restriction itself, such the fact that the restriction is due to a restraining order. The claim distinguishes the legal restriction itself from the route being taken because the restriction is claimed as “affecting the custom route”. The legal restriction is considered to be the restriction such as a restraining order that is disclosed in paragraph 023. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim lanague, the claimed notification of the legal restriction has a scope that includes notification of the restraining order itself, not the route that can or cannot be taken. The driver in Magzimof receives navigation guidance of the route to be taken, but nothing is disclosed about the driver also receiving a notification of the legal restriction, such as notification of a restraining order, etc.. Magzimof does not teach that a notification is sent to the driver that informs the driver of the legal restriction itself and satisfies what is claimed.
With respect to the recitation of “the first communication device registered with a driving service”, this is a recitation directed to non-functional descriptive material that does not define anything to the claimed invention. The fact that the communication device is registered with a service does not impart any step or structure to anything that is claimed. There is no registration of any device in the claim scope and the registration is something that occurred in the past per the claim language itself, and for that reason is not a part of the claim scope, including for the method. The examiner makes this comment to clarify how the claim lanague has been interpreted.
For claims 1, 20, not disclosed by Magzimof s that upon a deviation of the vehicle from the custom route being detected, a second electronic notification is then presented on the second communication device that the custom route being provided is a mandatory route.
The examiner notes that Magzimof teaches that the routes to be taken can be specified and that they may be limited to a predetermined set of routes, see paragraphs 020, 033. Magzimof teaches that the system provides the user with a mandatory or required route that is to be taken by providing navigational guidance to the user, see paragraphs 004, 013, 015, 035 as examples. Magzimof teaches that the location of the vehicle is monitored to determine if the vehicle and the occupant are violating a restriction, see paragraph 037 that discloses the triggering of an alert upon determining that the policy restriction is being violated. Paragraph 038 teaches providing navigation instructions to a vehicle that includes instructions on routes or areas to take or to not go into. Magzimof is found to be teaching the act of monitoring the location of the vehicle for deviations from a specified route or area, etc..
Branch discloses a system and method of tracking a vehicle that uses positional information of the vehicle to monitor vehicle location and to monitor the travel routes being taken. Branch discloses that the system can notify the driver of a vehicle when they have deviated from a required route that is supposed to be taken. Paragraph 012 discloses that vehicle position is determined by using GPS signals and paragraph 15 discloses that when a vehicle is found to be deviating from a specified route, a message can be sent to a vehicle informing the user/driver that they have deviated from the specified route.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Magzimof with the ability to notify a user with an electronic notification to the vehicle, that they have deviated from a mandatory route, such as for the situation where there is only one allowed route that is to be taken to a particular destination due to area restrictions placed upon the occupant of a vehicle. Magzimof monitors the location of the vehicle and its adherence to traveling on a specified and permitted route and teaches that navigational instructions can be sent to the vehicle and the driver at various times to provide assistance in adhering to the restrictions placed upon the occupant. In view of the teaching of Branch, it would have been obvious to provide the vehicle driver of Magzimof with a notification that they have deviated from a mandatory route, that is the disclosed one of the predetermined allowed routes of Magzimof that the occupant can take to a destination. Providing a notification as claimed would yield the predictable result of allowing the driver and the occupant (can be the same) of Magzimof to be notified that they have deviated from a required route that they must take to a destination, such as when there is only one allowed route to a given destination due to lack of roads, etc., which is something that is well within the scope of Magzimof and is dependent on the destination, the area, the existence of numerous roads or lack of roads to a given destination, and the restriction itself.
Additionally, while the prior art to Branch teaches the content of the notification as claimed, the examiner notes that for the record that the content of the notification and what it conveys to a person receiving the notification is a recitation to non-functional descriptive material that is akin to claiming printed matter of a textual message. This type of limitation does not receive weight with respect to what the notification says to a person. However, this is a moot point due to Branch disclosing the claimed content of the notification. The examiner makes this comment to clarify for the record that content of a notification is not functional in nature and is the same as claiming printed matter.
For claims 3, 21, Magzimof teaches that the custom route to be taken will avoid restricted areas based on the identity of the passenger. Magzimof teaches a judicial decision as being the basis for the travel restriction. This is considered to satisfy the claimed court order. A judicial decision is a court order. The example in paragraph 023 to a restraining order satisfies the claimed court order to stay a certain distance away from one or more entities, which are the persons that the restraining order is protecting.
Magzimof teaches what is claimed.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magzimof et al. (20190385460) Magzimof et al. (20190385460) in view of Branch et al. (5760742) and further in view of examiner official notice.
For claim 9, not disclosed is that the restriction does not allow the individual a predetermined distance from a school. The examiner takes official notice to the fact that child sexual predators are known the legal field and upon conviction of a sex crime with a child, it is known in the judicial system to not allow the convicted person near schools. If one is convicted of a sex crime involving a child, it is known in the art that they cannot be near children at schools (they must maintain a certain distance form the schools). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Magzimof with judicial restrictions that restrict how close to a school the individual can be, so that the benefits of the system of Magzimof can be obtained for passengers/individuals that are not allowed to be near schools due to being convicted of a child sex crime.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. The applicant argues on page 7 of the reply that the claims are integrated into a practical application. The applicant argues that storing and displaying electronic information in a unique way is not considered a mental process according to examples 21 and 42. This is not persuasive because the claims have been rejected as being directed to a certain method of organizing human activities, not a mental process type of abstract idea. For this reason the argument is not persuasive. The claims are reciting steps taken to satisfy a legal obligation that is a legal restriction such as a stay away order. This is a concept that falls into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities. With respect to the argument about claiming a unique way to store and display electronic data, the examiner notes that there is no specific way of storing data claimed and the display of the data is only claimed as being done by an electronic display of a communication device. That is a general link to computer implementation of the abstract idea, not a special way to store and display data.
The applicant argues on page 7 that the claims recite a particular way of displaying a custom generated navigation route that is initially displayed without displaying a notification that the route is changed to reflect a legal restriction. This is not persuasive. While the claims may recite what data is being displayed or what data is not initially being displayed, there is nothing claimed about a specific way of displaying the data other than the providing of a custom drive route and the use of an electronic display to display the route. That is not claiming some unique and specific way of displaying data that would render the claims eligible. The display of the data is not defined by the data that is being displayed. The display of the data is part of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite a specific way to display data that is more than a general link to computer implementation for the abstract idea.
With respect to the argument about how the claimed invention is an improvement to the speed, accuracy, privacy, and efficiency over existing methods, this is not persuasive and is taken as a general allegation that the claims are eligible. The reasons people use computers is that they are faster and more accurate in processing data than people. In terms of using computers to perform a judicial exception, in Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), the court stated:
“Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient
inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be
performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)).” The court also stated that “As discussed above, our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
In terms of privacy, any increase in privacy is due to the abstract idea itself and is not manifested by an application of the abstract idea that somehow uses technology for more than a general link to computers. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues example 42 of the eligibility guidance. There is no credible nexus that has been made between example 42 and the pending claims other than to generally allege that they are similar to each other. The elements of storing and displaying navigation routes with selective notifications regarding the mandatory nature of the route does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is essentially arguing the abstract idea itself. The claims are not standardizing information from different sources that are using different formats as was the case in example 42. The argument is not persuasive.
The traversal of the 35 USC 102 rejection is considered to be moot based on the new grounds of rejection that is set forth for the pending claims and that is necessitated by the amendment to the claims. This moots the arguments from the applicant.
The applicant argues that Magzimof teaches notification of a restriction because restricted areas can be displayed to a driver. The restricted areas are not the same as the restriction itself, such as a restraining order. Magzimof does not teach that the driver is provided with a notification of the restriction such as a restraining order. The claim distinguishes the legal restriction itself from the route being taken because the restriction is claimed as “affecting the custom route”. The legal restriction is considered to be the restriction such as a restraining order that is disclosed in paragraph 023. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim lanague, the claimed notification of the legal restriction has a scope that includes notification of the restraining order itself, not the route that can or cannot be taken. The routes to be taken and the restricted area does not equate to being a notification of the restriction itself. Magzimof does not teach notification of the restriction as claimed. For this reason the argument is not persuasive. No other arguments have been presented for consideration.
Conclusion
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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626